HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2020 Planning Commission Meeting Packet AGENDA
06P4�i
�� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
lip
City Hall-Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,MAY 21,2020
6:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2020
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Comp. Plan Amendment Kidwell (MF# CPA 2019-001)
B. Comp. Plan Amendment Urban Growth Area (MF# CPA 2020-001)
C. Code Amendment Waterfront Development District(MF#CA2019-001)
(Applicant:Port of Pasco)
VIII. WORKSHOP
A. Street Connectivity (MF# CA2019-013)
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired;contact staff for assistance.
Please silence your cell phones. Thank you.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall - Council Chambers
1WC0
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, MARCH 19,2020
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.,by Chair Tanya Bowers.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Tanya Bowers, Joseph Campos, Abel Campos, Pamela Ransier, Jerry
Cochran. Commissioners via Telephone: Issac Myhrum, Anne Jordan, and Paul Mendez a quorum
for declared.
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, Senior Planner Jacob
Gonzalez, Administrative Assistant II Kristin Webb, and Angie Pitman Block Grant Administrator.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Abel Campos led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Bowers explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers
appointed by City Council.
She further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to
City Council regarding changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Updates, Block Grant
Allocations and Zoning Code. The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term
growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,livability,
economic opportunity, housing affordability, public services and the environment.
Chair Bowers reminded the audience tonight's proceedings were being broadcast live on City of
Pasco's Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times
during the next month.
She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco's website,
which is Pasco-wa.gov. Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there.
Chair Bowers stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table.
She then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting.
For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please
come to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of address for
the record.
Chair Bowers reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law
requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair, but also appear to be
fair. In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating
in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either benefited
or harmed by the Planning Commission's decision. An objection to any Planning Commission
member hearing any matter on tonight's agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 March 19,2020
She asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing
any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped
the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City
Council. Furthermore, in many cases, this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and
opinions placed into the official record and City Council will use to make the Commission's decision.
She encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
❖ Commissioner Ransier moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of
December 19, 2019. Commissioner Cochran seconded and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Comp Plan Amendment (CPA2019-001) Kidwell: Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez
explained that this item was brought before the Planning Commission in November 2019 but
due to the notifications not being sent out on time to the public that this is being brought to
the Planning Commission again today. The owners of 3.9-acre parcel located at the northwest
corner of Broadmoor Blvd. and Burns Road have requested a Comprehensive Land Use
designation change from High Density Residential to Mixed Residential/Commercial. Based
on the City of Pasco's ongoing comprehensive planning efforts on land use, utilities,
transportation, the need to accommodate additional residents at higher densities and the
Capital Improvement Plan, staff recommends the area remain High Density Residential.
Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez explained that with the Covid-19 outbreak that the City is
continuing this hearing open until the next Planning Commission,meeting which is to be held
April 16th.
❖ Commissioner Cochran asked if the City of Pasco has a certain criteria set forth in the
City's Code for zone change. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez explained the process for a
rezone and also that this isn't a rezone but more of a land use change. Todd Kidwell spoke
on his behalf, he is trying to get this land use change so that he can put in a store, maybe a
carwash gas station and coffee shop. Commissioner Ransier questioned the change in the
designation would it just be residential or commercial. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzales
explained that it could be residential or commercial. Commissioner Ransier asked the
applicant if he planned on doing any residential. Applicant Todd Kidwell said there would
be no residential just commercial. Commissioner Cochran asked how long they have owned
the parcel.Applicant Todd Kidwell stated they closed on the property in November of 2019.
Debra Parson spoke against the Comp Plan Amendment that her property is directly across
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 December 19,2019
the street and can be seen out her front porch. Rick Simon with Knutzen Engineering
speaking on behalf of the Kidwell Application, with the growth of Broadmoor and Burns
there would be a need for neighborhood commercial services. Paul Knutzen with Knutzen
Engineering understands and supports Todd Kidwell Application he stated that Tim Bush
owns Bush Carwash and Roasters coffee and partner with Bruchis has talked to Todd
Kidwell about partnering with the Kidwell's to bring in the carwash and coffee shop. Frank
Parson spoke against the noise and equipment shaking the houses,spoke about more traffic
and crime that will go up. Caleb Stromstad in favor of the Application stated that no one
likes development but that is not a reason to deny the application. Steve Belman is in favor
of the Kidwell application. Jim Curtis spoke that on Sandifur and Broadmoor, which is,
just a couple blocks away there is a lot of property that they could build whatever they
wanted and it would not impact this area. Commissioner Joseph Campos reminded the
Chair that this public hearing is to remain open until the next meeting and that it will not
be closed. Community and Economic Development Director Rick White stated there is
additional time for comments to be either taken electronically or written and the address is
on the screen.
❖ Commissioner Cochran made a motion that we continue this item to the next Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Joseph Campos seconded and the motion carried.All
of the written comments have been included in the minutes.
Block Grant Caper 2019 (MF#BGAP 2020-001): Community and Economic Development
Director introduced Angie Pitman Block Grant Coordinator and explained how the CDBG program
works and what the funds are dedicated too. Angie Pitman Block Grant Coordinator explained that
the CAPER 2019 is the end of the grant cycle and the end of the prior five-year consolidated plan.
This CAPER sums up what the City of Pasco has done in the year.
❖ Commissioner Ransier commended Block Grant Coordinator Angie Pitman on all her hard
work. Commissioner Joseph Campos made a motion to close the public hearing and to
approve the 2019 Caper as presented. Commissioner Pam Ransier seconded and the motion
carried.
Comp. Plan Amendment-Urban Growth Area (MF#2020-001): Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez
prepared a brief presentation on the development of the Urban Growth Area application and
expansion.As part of the ongoing Comprehensive Planning update efforts,the City of Pasco has been
developing an application to Franklin County to increase the Urban Growth Area. Under the
Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.110), counties are responsible for
designating, expanding and reducing Urban Growth Area boundaries.
❖ Commissioner Cochran asked about the letters of support which alternative they were in
favor of. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated that they would propose alternative number
three(3). Commissioner Ransier asked when the last time the City proposed an application
to the County. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated it was June 2018. Community and
Economic Development Director stated the City pulled back so that the City could do an
environmental impact statement. Commissioner Abel Campos wanted to thank staff for the
update. Commissioner Jordan asked if the Comprehensive Plan, Broadmoor development
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 December 19,2019
and the Urban Growth Area going to be coming at different times or will it all be done
together. Community and Economic Development Director Rick White stated that we have
put our foot on the gas with the Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
and have taken our foot off the gas for the Broadmoor Development because we were able
to use the land use designation provided in the latest draft of Broadmoor Plan for our
Comprehensive Plan land use calculation and capacity analysts. But all in all they will
probably hit the fan right about the same time, but they are separate processes.
Commissioner Myhrum asked if staff could speak to Road 68 capacity handling additional
commercial development further north not a lot of access points up there and part two
Thanksgiving Limited Partnership wrote a letter about the soccer complex that was left out.
Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated as far as the transportation capacity as Mr. White
had mentioned Broadmoor is a significant component and being able to utilize the
Broadmoor density and the revised land use as allocated and the expanded UGA the
compact development alternative number three were able to theoretically redistribute
vehicles a little bit more efficiently and providing commercial opportunities.
Debra Parson asked what type of Industrial. Do you see Broadmoor Blvd becoming as
commercial as Road 68. Currently Broadmoor Blvd is a two lane road do you see the road
expanding. Gary Ballew commented that the Port of Pasco is in support of alternative three.
Caleb Stromstad wanted to know what is the objective and if the City was just trying to push
through a comprehensive plan, he had many questions for staff and Community and
Economic Development Director suggested that he get together with staff at a different
seating. Steven Belman asked about all the outreach was this prior to the submittal of the
2018 application. Community and Economic Development Director stated yes it was. Paul
Knutzen stated there is urgency to get this done.
Code Amendment- Waterfront Development District (MF# CA2019-001): The Port of Pasco
requested an amendment to the Pasco Municipal Zoning Code for the creation of a new zoning district
titled "Waterfront District". PMC 25.210.020 states that any person, firm, corporation or group of
individuals, or municipal department may petition the Pasco City Council for a zone or text change.
The proposed amendment would encompass approximately 52 acres of property owned by the Port
of Pasco,north of the Sacagawea Heritage trail and bound by E Ainsworth to the North, S Gray Street
to the West of SE Road 20 to the East. The primary use of the existing property is Osprey Pointe, a
business and office center home to the Port of Pasco offices. Although the properties included are
currently zoned industrial, the upcoming City Comprehensive Plan has re-classified the area for
Mixed Residential/Commercial land use. The Port of Pasco and the City of Pasco have identified the
Osprey Pointe as a significant opportunity to provide residents with a unique experience providing
additional access to the waterfront.
❖ Gary Bellew, Port of Pasco Director of Economic Development gave a presentation of the
requested amendment to the Pasco Municipal Zoning Code. Among the highest priorities
for community members is developing Pasco's riverfront. The shared vision is mixed-use
residential-commercial development combined with open space and public access along the
expansive riverfront- including trail linkages from the waterfront to the downtown.
Consider product types yet under-represented in the Tri-Cities areas- as for townhomes,
live-work spaces, and mixed-use buildings with ground floor commercial and residential
above. The first requirements is creation of a mixed-use zone, which is not currently
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 December 19,2019
available in the City of Pasco. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated this is an opportunity
to provide something unique to the City of Pasco and the Tri-City region. Commissioner
Ransier stated what a great presentation and she is looking forward to this developing.
Commissioner Abel Campos stated that it was an exciting presentation. Commissioner Able
Campos questioned about the parking. Gary Bellew said they are trying to make some
allowances for the parking. Commissioner Cochran echoed what Commissioner Able
Campos about the parking. Commissioner Myhrum wanted to thank Gary Bellew for the
presentation. Commissioner Bowers asked if they were entertaining the point of affordable
housing. Commissioner Ransier asked if they thought of working living spaces. Senior
Planner Jacob Gonzalez asked that this item be continued until the April meeting.
❖ Commissioner Abel Campos made a motion that we continued this Public Hearing until
the April 16th meeting. Commissioner Joseph Campos seconded the motion and motion
carried.
WORKSHOP
Code Amendment- Street Connectivity (MF# CA2019-013): The purpose of this report is to
provide an update to the Planning Commission on staff efforts to revise PMC 21.15 "Streets" and
PMC 21.20 "Lots and Blocks". Prior to the code amendments, identifying the constraints with the
existing code will be highlighted. The next steps will be the revisions to the Pasco Municipal Code
will encourage and increase access and connectivity by addressing the following:
• Block Perimeters
• Block Length/Width
• Mid-Block Connections
• Connections to adjacent properties (developed/undeveloped)
Staff is preparing draft code amendments to address the above components for the April 16th Planning
Commission Meeting.
Code Amendment: House Bill 1923- Update: The City of Pasco, along with 51 other communities
received funding from the Washington State Department of Commerce to address housing
affordability and supply in their respective communities. The funding was available through the
passage of House Bill 1923, approved by the Washington State Legislature during the 2019-2020
session. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez provided the Planning Commission with data and information
on the existing housing supply and distribution within the City of Pasco. Senior Planner Jacob
Gonzalez gave a brief presentation of the three proposed code amendments under House Bill 1923.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion-Proposed Revision to By-Laws-Regular Meetings_It was unanimously decided that this
discussion would be continued when the new Planning Commissioners were appointed.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to bring before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
8:36 pm.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 December 19,2019
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Webb, Administrative Assistant II
Community&Economic Development Department
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 December 19,2019
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
fkiko City Hall —525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, May 21, 2020
6:00 PM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MF# CPA 2019-001— Kidwell
Background
The owners of 3.9-acre parcel (#115-180-065) located at the northwest corner of Broadmoor
Blvd. and Burns Road have requested a Comprehensive Land Use designation change from High
Density Residential to Mixed Residential / Commercial.
The existing High Density Residential Land Use designation is implemented through the R-4
zoning districts. The draft Comprehensive Plan (in progress) indicates that the High Density
Residential zoning district is for the development of multifamily dwelling units (i.e. apartments
or condominiums) at 21 units or more per acre.
The requested Mixed Residential / Commercial designation is implemented through the RS-20;
RS-12; R-S-1; R-1 through R-3; C-1 and O (Office) zoning districts. The current designation of
Mixed Residential/Commercial of the Comprehensive Plan is described as providing for a variety
of housing ranging from single-family detached dwelling units and multifamily dwellings ranging
from 5 - 20 units per acre, this also include areas for neighborhood shopping, business parks and
office uses.
The City of Pasco is currently in progress of developing the Broadmoor Master Plan. The
Broadmoor Master Plan involves 1,600 — 2,000 acres of primarily undeveloped land in the
northwest section of the current city limits and Urban Growth Area. The master plan identified
and analyzed alternative land use scenarios and their impacts on the environment, utilities and
transportation systems. The Broadmoor Master Plan's accompanying Environmental Impact
Statement was evaluated with the anticipation of this parcel as Medium-High Density Residential.
Broadmoor Blvd is a key travel corridor for residents of Pasco and the region with its connection
to Interstate 1-182. Over 12,000 vehicles travel along Broadmoor Blvd on an average weekday.
The Comprehensive Plan has identified that this corridor will updated to a Principal Arterial
Classification in the 2038 Future Street Functional Classification System.This designation includes
capacity and roadway improvements that were identified in the Broadmoor EIS Transportation
Analysis and the ensuing Comprehensive Plan.
A benefit of the land use as it exists is its positive impact on transportation accessibility in
Northwest Pasco. Locating medium and high density residential housing along major travel
corridors has shown to be a good practice as residents have immediate access to businesses,
services (retail,jobs, restaurants) and transit facilities. The site is also within close proximity to a
new elementary and middle school to the east on Burns Road, which would align with providing
residents an opportunity to reside near public school facilities.
The Washington State Office of Financial Management has forecasted that the City of Pasco will
need to accommodate an estimated 121,828 residents by the year 2038. That is an increase of
over 48,000 residents from our current population. More than 15,000 housing units are needed
in Pasco to accommodate the population growth between now and 2038.
At the October 14th, 2019 City Council meeting, the Public Works Department shared an update
on the Capital Improvement Program, including progress on the NW Area Trunk Sewer LID. The
LID (Local Improvement District) is based on serving forecasted and planned population and
commercial growth in and around the Broadmoor area, specifically to the west of Broadmoor
Blvd and along Burns Road.The parcel proposed for a Land Use change is within the LID boundary.
City of Pasco Public Works staff is updating its Comprehensive Sewer Plan (in progress). Impacts
to the utilities have been evaluated using the existing planned residential densities.
In late December 2016, the Planning Commission approved staff recommendation for the current
property, which at the time was part of a larger parcel (#115180064) from Low Density
Residential to High Density Residential.
This item was discussed at the November 2019 Planning Commission meeting. It was continued
to allow for the appropriate notifications to surrounding property owners to be completed per
PMC 25.210.040. The item was scheduled for a public hearing at the February 20th, 2020 Planning
Commission meeting but was postponed for March.
Recommendation
Based on the City of Pasco's ongoing comprehensive planning efforts on land use, utilities,
transportation, the need to accommodate additional residents at higher densities and the Capital
Improvement Plan, staff recommends the area remain High Density Residential.
2
Vicinity Item: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment N
Applicant: Kidwell W+E
Map File #: CPA 2019-001 S
n Ail-
up
} : .sL
QUAIL
jr.
�'
CO
'EASTON DR ���` �. �0'
CS,.7
Z
I W P CAM RD
`WOODSMAN DR
Or
--(BURNS RD�
NORFOLK DR' CADRz EMT
n°^'�R ;
t�N Z J Z ? O
W
Z 1-
t Z W v (n
0 500 1,000 Feet '� 'f
EXHIBIT A
.. r
I }
' � y
.I
- F •� X66[[
Parcel 11 S•t 2ODEA
Dfsthd kf eTwAtson
G.iner TSK 2019 LLC
Address:
z
I t
sit�R+f'i
IIRn1HT*DR z �p�
it
i .
�f
al
CN►NUOK CT
AL
NERD ..r,4,
9 w _ NORFOLK OR
•s.l� Q ..;r t{� r i�j I R •� y
I+arnNcw►w Ott wo
I jI,• ' � � 4 � �' • 6V�f
4P,
• i y i
i!
1
I! 1
I
P i
5 I
/ � I
/ / 1
/ � I
;I
/ / 1
i b I I Y 1• j
\V/ V Y• I ! � 1
i
0 6 ,0 bl
R jA 1
------ ---__
Conceptual site plan for: ®MI'�°"G JFK,wes D"V.
BURNS KORNER 07000 ��.p1s
mos. n
A site In the City of Pasco,WA �";�n+M t°"'y" �.�N 2 of 2
r
BOUTHFLEVATM
=LIMIMRY.FLOOR PLAN Jk
December 23, 2019
1 am writing this letter to encourage consideration of rezoning property located at the
intersection of Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road in Pasco. This property rezoning
will allow construction of a convenience store and retail fueling station by Todd and
Stacy Kidwell. The Kidwells have two other locations in Franklin County; a new
construction on Kohlotus Road and the other, a remodel and addition of a fuel island
on Highway 395, north of Pasco. Sun Pacific Energy has partnered with the Kidwells in
an advisory capacity on both the construction and operations of their existing
locations. Both locations carry the Shell brand of motor fuel products and the new
location would carry the Shell brand as well. Shell requires that their distributors and
dealers adhere to a strict image level which ensures attractive,clean,well-maintained
and successful facilities that are additions to the neighborhoods and communities
being served.
This new location would serve the ever-increasing residents in the area and could
alleviate some of the congestion on Road 68. The Kidwells have a proven business
model. This new location is a sure success and would set the standard for any further
retail development. Please consider this proposed rezoning.
se Oct me with any questions.
Chris Eerkes, President
Sun Pacific Energy
S LJ 1V
hiac�i v i c•
1'.,N 1:1 t':%*
501 West Canal Drive
P O Box 6980
Kennewick, WA 99336
(509)586-1135
Fox (509)585-9875
EXHIBIT B
February 12, 2020
Community Development Department RECEIVED
PO Box 293
525 N 3rd Ave COMMUNITY& ECON01.11C OEVELOp11
Pasco, WA 99301
SUBJECT: Todd and Stacy Kidwell Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on Parcel
#115-180-065 (Northwest Corner of Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard.)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
In August of 2018, my husband and I bought a lot in the Columbia Terrace subdivision which is
located across the street from the parcel mentioned above. We are senior citizens and we
were looking for a quiet residential area to have a home built for us to retire. We chose this
area because we were told that the undeveloped land on the west side of Broadmoor
Boulevard was zoned "High Density Residential" and more homes would be built there. Our
home was built and we moved into it December of 2018.
We have lived here for a little over one year and now we are distressed to learn from your
letter that the Kidwell's are wanting to change the zoning to allow for commercial businesses
in this area. This should not be allowed to happen! People depend on the Pasco Zoning Laws
to make important choices in their lives. We want this to remain a High Density Residential
zone for the sake of the families who have already invested their hard earned money in a quiet
place to live and raise their families. Bringing in commercial businesses will destroy this quiet
residential area.
We look around West Pasco and see that there are plenty of properties for sale that are
already zoned as commercial. Please keep the businesses with other businesses and people's
homes with other homes. Please do not allow this change of zoning. People should be able
to live in peace away from the hustle and bustle of the business community.
Thank you for reading this letter and taking our concerns into consideration.
Sincerely,
Debra and Frank Parsons
March 9, 2020
Community Development Department EXHIBIT C PE(,'c1VED
Attention: The Planning Commission MAK 0 y 2020
PO Box 293 COMMUNITY& ECONO1,11C DEVELOPIJENT
525 N 3rd Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
SUBJECT: Petition from Homeowners of the Columbia Terrace Subdivision opposing Todd and
Stacy Kidwell's Application request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land
use designation of a 3.9-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Burns Road and Broadmoor
Boulevard (Parcel #115-180-065) from High Density Residential to Mixed
Residential/Commercial in Pasco, WA (CPA2019-001).
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Enclosed are signatures and addresses from homeowners of the Columbia Terrace Subdivision
who live closest to Broadmoor Boulevard. Many other homeowners said they would be
attending the public Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 2020 and did not want to
sign. We are opposed to the change in land use designation to allow for commercial
businesses to be built here. We all bought our homes with the knowledge that the land along
Broadmoor Boulevard was zoned for Residential homes and that we would be part of a
Residential Community.
Please accept these signatures and addresses from Columbia Terrace Subdivision as those
opposed to the change of zoning and add them to the Planning Commission's meeting packet
for March 19, 2020.
Thank you for receiving this information and adding it to those already submitted.
Sincerely,
Debra and Frank Parsons
9903 Silverbright Drive
Pasco, WA 99301
Enclosures
THOS PERI ITOON IS TO RE SUBMITTED TO THE
CITY OF PASCO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FOR THE
MARCH 19, 2020
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Information Gathered and Submitted by:
Frank and Debra Parsons
9903 Silverbright Drive
Pasco, WA 99301
We the Homeowners of the Columbia Terrace Subdivision,sign this petition opposing Todd
and Stacy Kidwell's Application request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the
land use designation of a 3.9-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Burns Road and
Broadmoor Boulevard (Parcel #115-180-065) from High Density Residential to Mixed
Residential/Commercial in Pasco, WA (CPA2019-001). WE DO NOT WANT A COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS HERE.
Print Name_),e-bra. A. Parsons Signature_� Q ��
Address 990 3 Silye- br aht lir asci. Q 993 / Phone Sd91/2- /9'76 Date_2
Print NameSi:
gnature%- =�
Address 9 V03 kJ/� f'k-%/Phone z o -7/F-Z 799 Date_z/Z z Z
Print Name_ ('AV'Y o&- ' _—___Signature
Address ��0 Phone ..5b s7 Date
�' L�� /.4 11 Z_
Print Name 7
Signature
Address l ` r i�� 0�`l� Phone� 1q/7qiate
' 1
Print Name ',a ?— Signatur
Address -phone-, L29 Z�x�Date 21Z��Z�
LI
Print Name 762,�tv N 2 Signature• -
Address —Phone�s-b 'Y• kr3, J,ffC.Date
Print Name_ i \ �, -�'� 5ignature4h1)
Address.Gl [j; Phone_1101�i'k I 11,._Date_& 2c ' _
We the Homeowners of the Columbia Terrace Subdivision, sign this petition opposing Todd
and Stacy Kidwell°s Application request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the
land use designation of a 3.9-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Burns Road and
Broadmoor Boulevard (Parcel x#115-180-065) from High Density Residential to Mixed
Residential/Commercial in Pasco, WA (CPA2019-001). WE DO NOT WANT A COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS HERE.
Print Name=�`� p � �s y�% _Signature —
Address /G �� �i��-ter�� 6� ti 1 �f,�, Phoned/ ZU Date
Print Name—�Jvc`7 C o Jl _ Signature
Address_ p c1 C H rN W � Phone -;V-(f `� r Date_�7 �7
Pdntr Name
Address kO c�
Print Name I 1 Signature Uva
Address. p (' Phone �� `t `�16
pr!nt Name( L
w-t n' � Cali` �� Signature_ �
Address C���D� ���1 �l�?U� Phone��L�
Print Name-Y% )\KNQ �-M\LL Signature
Address,,(I US L)k� CT Phone. ��i �' Date I ;�Q
Print IVame -IGIA A,( Signature �.A
Address. �T C24 Y9�O/ Phone_SCi- Z r R�Date 1/,�Z a
We the Homeowners of the Columbia Terrace Subdivision, sign this petition opposing Todd
and Stacy Kidwell's Application request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the
land use designation of a 3.9-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Burns Road and
Broadmoor Boulevard (Parcel #115-160-065) from High Density Residential to Miffed
Residential/Commercial in Pasco, WA (CPA2019-001). WE DO NOT WANT A COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS HERE.
Print Name r Cy Mcc r�i vtoZ Signature
Addresslvl I\ Phone �y S5 Date-'Z 11/-,b 12,1
Feint Name--j i -7 Signature
(D
Address—(?'?�-5 - �t�N�� DR Phone_ �'�f- G� t
3� Date
Print Name Signature
Address Phone Date_
Print Name Signature
Address Phone Date
Print Name Signature
Address Phone Date
Print Name Signature
Address Phone_ Date
Print Name Signature
Address Phone Date
EXHIBIT D
To contact the City of Pasco, Washington, please complete the form below and click
Submit.
Name: Rachel Teel
Email: rachel teel(aDyahoo.com
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 3/19/2020 - Agenda Item 1 - Burns Rd.100
/Broadmoor
Comment: I'm sorry I can not make it tonight given the COVID 19 virus has my family
quarantined. I do not agree with the request for Zoning change of the lot on
the corner of Burns and Rd. 100/ broadmoor. When I bought my house in the
neighborhood across the street the most recent zoning map available that I
could find to the public was a 2017 map. It showed that lot as Medium density
residential. After I purchased my home and noticed all the building activity I
talked to the City Planner And I found out there had been a zoning change a
few years ago but that wasn't reflected on the maps I found. I don't think
anyone in our neighborhood knew that any of this had occurred (realtors of
the builders did not know). I believe it should be changed back to medium
density. I understand more urban growth areas are needed but why can't
those be in the new broadmoor area? The intersection of broadmoor and
Burns is already incredibly busy and there should be some sort of transition. A
gas station that close to our homes or high density housing does not fit the
need of that busy area. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Please note: Your e-mail and any e-mail response from the City may be a public record
under RCW 42.56 and subject to inspection and copying by the public upon request.
Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
* indicates required fields.
View any uploaded files by signing and then proceeding to the link below:
htty://www,Pasco-wa.gov/Admin/FonnHistory.aspx?SID=13057
EXHIBIT E
From:Amy Cordray<cordray@msn.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 19, 2020 3:06 PM
To: Kristin Webb<webbk@ pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Meeting letter
F;xtcrnal Frnail «arstint;! This email has originated from outside of the City of Pasco. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Amy Cordray
Sent:Thursday, March 19, 2020 2:58:33 PM
To: webbk@pasco-wa.gov<webbk@pasco wa.gov>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting letter
Hi Kristen,
We spoke on the phone earlier. Thank you for handing this out at the meeting tonight since we
will not be able to attend. - thanks! Amy
When we bought our home - we were sold on the fact that it was zoned for residential
across the street (between Burns and Silverbright Dr.)
We would not have invested in an almost 1/2 million $$ home if we had any idea it could
potentially be located right next to a gas station.
The neon lights shining into our house at night and the added traffic at all hours would be
a nuisance. Not to mention the frequent robberies that happen at gas stations.
We were assured that this was to be a family-friendly neighborhood surrounded by
schools and residential property.
I am sure most of you would agree that you would not want your kids out playing in the
front yard while living within 400 feet of a gas station.
Some homeowners in our neighborhood were worried that the alternative to a gas station
would would be low-income apartments.
I did some research and, unless I am reading it wrong, the lots across from us are zoned
R-3 medium residential - which, if you look at the attached picture, is the same zone as
The Mediterranean Villas on Broadmoor- these are high end condo/duplexes.
The rest of the land is zoned R-S-1 Suburban - which is low density residential.
None of this land is zoned for low-income high density living. So that shouldn't be a
concern.
We highly oppose having this land rezoned for commercial building - and we hope you
take our concerns for safety into consideration.
Thank you,
Matt and Amy Cordray
:, _ �-- - -
BNOQUA11
e-
i
FACKARD O�
j DESOTO
ON
- cc= - -
d r ,ea _7775.
a
- s
_ S _
Ry a
^ ZOning R-1-A2 LOW DENSITY
RS-20 SUBURBAN R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY
! RS-12 SUBURBAN ® R-3 MEDIUM DENSITN
R-S-1 SUBURBAN R-d HIGH DENSITY RE
R-S-1/PUD SUBURBAN PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT- RP RESIDENTIAL PAF
R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RT RESIDENTIAL TRO
^ 'O'OFFICE
•
EXHIBIT F
�-
KNUTZEN
ENGINEERING
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Supplemental Information
(CPA 2019-001 )
TSK 2019 LLC
NW Corner of Burns Road & Broadmoor Blvd, Pasco, WA
Prepared For:
Todd & Stacy Kidwell
811 Pasco Kahlotus Road
Pasco, WA 99301
Prepared By:
Paul Knutzen, PE, LEED AP BD+C
Project No. 20052
Preparation Date:
March 19, 2020
Revised:
March 27, 2020
54011 Kennewick,WA 99338 1 509.222.0oii-I
ILA-
i ��'� �T•. �_ �. .4`�"� _ _ 'a� �rr,�'�s x :�r�;� i:r s•.u•�.•.Ir%r ti:4ay.A
� .+�d7y ►t A-TV
�SUiafrg7�f�� 4..►'�VlrJ�aa� ,. .;� ►F� 1 Frul1-1��►J r1�ltIL_ 111 111"J} 1J
� rF:a��� •'r-s �..��[.►i►wrii•.'�a:wvvn�tr��rrli��-��►:�ii ar•+9.1r(rrwa rr•��►w.r++.��.� �
F _ rr ' -- , _, fit . ry:�.y`—S 7S��c4. -A►+k� i6+nN.+h V4,
13�'!•. ��*+��_��`��4�'—�+Y-�I'c�.��►�►wa�:ter.��„r�,�a�A.•..+.��.�.�r---�---��" •
► .� : - ray�! "f�i , ' ±?� +�,k,l��.r»■��,nu.i jy,� 4•w 3 t ,...rJlr R.; .
;nc � 1.�-w��•--fir• �. • ..•
T `±
PROJECT
LOCt1TION .
�y r
(E)PROJECT , -.. _.at.j
SITE o _I 3 u Q:
r'• - r
M9t .'
MARCH 27,2020 1
47KNUTZEN TSK 2019 LLC (CPA 2019-001)
ENGINEERING Project No.20052
2.0 RATIONALE FOR COMP PLAN CHANGE
The latest draft of the comprehensive plan designates the four- acre site located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Broadmoor and Burns as Medium Density Residential,a change from the previous High Density
Residential designation that was shown on the previous draft plan.The property owners are requesting a change to a
corrunercial land use designation for them to pursue development of the site as a gas convenience store,with other
neighborhood commercial services such as a coffee shop and an automatic car wash as seen in Figure 3.
There are several good reasons for the City to designate the subject site as commercial land.It would result in the
following:
• The 4 acre site would provide a needed area for neighborhood commercial services for the low density
residential areas that are developing along the Bums Road corridor both east and west of Broadmoor and the
future neighborhoods that will develop north of the site along the Broadmoor corridor.
• The site is level and does not contain any physical constraints that would preclude or limit the development of
the property with commercial uses.
• The draft plan contemplates that the City necds to accommodate a population increase of 50,148 residents by
2037. 1\4edium density development of the site at 8— 10 units/acre would create between 32 to 40 housing
units resulting in housing for approximately 60 to 80 persons,or.1%of the expected population increase over
the planning period.This very slight decrease in residential land supply is negligible.
• Policy LU-4-C of the draft plan states:"Encourage the development of avalkable communities by increarirrg mixer/-ure
(commercial/residential)developments that provide households with neighborhood and commenzal shopping opportunities."
Changing the designation of 4 acres at the intersection of two primary arterials would provide existing and
future neighborhoods along the Burns and Broadmoor corridors with some neighborhood commercial services
and would help to implement this policy.
• Policy LU-6_A of the draft plan states: "Encourage commenzal and higher-density residential uses along major•coni tors and
leverage irf astructure availability."Both Broadmoor and Burns would be considered major corridors.Commercial
development of the four-acre site at the intersection of these two streets would help to implement the portion
of the policy that speaks to encouraging commercial development along major corridors.
• The City of Pasco has a practice of planning and zoning for commercial development at the intersection of two
primary arterials. There are such 23 intersections within the City. Of these, 18 have a commercial plan
designation on at least one of the four corners of the intersection.The present draft plan does not call for any
commercial development on any of the corners of the Burns and Broadmoor intersection.Providing for
commercial development on just one of the legs of the intersection would be in keeping with the City's past
planning practices.Table 1 provides a summary of the existing plan designations for the intersections of
primary arterials.
MARCH 27,2020 2
,'" KNUMN TSK 2019 LLC (CPA 2019-001)
.s ENGINEERING Project No.20052
� I
— BUSH CCARWASH t I
I _(J - -
1 I
I '
I ' i
I Rd45TER5 �
1 � mix I 1
�InnIIIII I
I V i
BLDG
S,�
,I m
l 81
I
1
a
II I
BLDG
I `•, � li I �
Figur 3. Site Plan Map.
Table 1. Land Use Plan Designations @ Primary Ai7enal Intersections
Intersection of Plan Designation Plan Designation Plan Designation Plan Designation
Primary Arterial of of of of
Streets* Northwest Corner Northeast Corner Southwest Corner Southeast Corner
)ay Drive& Third Commercial Industrial Industrial Industrial
Avenue
Third Avenue& Government& Mixed Residential Mixed Residential Mixed Residential
Sylvester Public
Sylvester&Lewis Commercial Commercial Mixed Residential ;Nixed Residential
MARCH 27, 2020 3
"KNUTUN TSK 2019 LLC (CPA 2019-001)
:�ENGINEERING Project Into.20052
Oregon Avenue& Industrial Commercial Industrial Industrial
Lewis
Pasco-Kahlotus Commercial Commercial Nfixed Residential Commercial
Road&Lewis
Pasco-Kahlotus Mixed Residential & Commercial Industrial Industrial
Road&East`B" Commercial
Oregon Avenue& A-fixed Residential& Mixed Residential& Industrial Industrial
W.Ainsworth Commercial Commercial
W.Ainsworth& Commercial Mixed Residential Commercial Commercial
South 10t1'
N.2011'&Lewis Commercial Mixed Residential & Commercial Commercial
Avenue Commercial
N. 20t1,&West Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
Court
N. 20t1'&I-82 Government& Commercial Govern rent & Low Density
Public Public Residential
Lewis&395 Low Density Commercial Low Density Commercial
Residential Residential
W.Court&395 Commercial Commercial Commercial cammestfal
395&I-82 Government& Government& Low Density Low Density
Public Public Residential Residential
Road 68&I-82 Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
Road 68&ArgentI
Mixed Residential& NI fixed Residential& Mixed Residential& Mixed Residential&
Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
Road 68&W Court Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
Road 68&Sandifur Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
Parkway i i
Road 68&Burns Mixed Residential& 1l1ixed Residential& Mixed Residential \•fixed Residential
Commercial Commercial
Road 100&Argent Low Density Low Density Low Density Low Density
Residential Residential Residential Residential
Broadmoor&I-82 I Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
Broadmoor& Commercial 'Mixed Residential& Commercial Commercial
Sandifur Parkway Commercial
Broadmoor&Burns Meamm Density. Low Density Low Density Low Density
Residential Residential Residential Residential
*Intersections of Primary Arterials taken from the City's Major Street Plan(copy attached)
MARCH 27, 2020 4
"K N U TH N TSK 2019 LLC (CPA 2019-001)
'z7 ENGINEERING Project No.20052
3.0 FOLLOW UP TO MARCH 19TH PC MEETING
The Kidwells desire to serve the growing neighborhood in northwest Pasco through the development of a small
neighborhood commercial center of 3.9 acres that would provide a gas station and convenience store,and other
neighborhood services such as a car wash,an espresso stand and similar small retail and/or food service businesses.
At the March 19, 2020,Pasco Planning Commission hearing,planning staff recommended against approval of the
requested comprehensive plan amendment based on the following arguments:
• Transportation Accessibility: Lands along the Broadmoor corridor should be reserved for multi-family
development in order to provide convenient access to commercial services.
• Growth: Significant growth is anticipated,with more than 15,000 housing units needed.Therefore,the site
should be reserved for multi-family development.
• Utilities:The property is included in a sewer LID and projected impacts have been calculated on the
assumption that the site will be developed for residential uses.
The following is a rebuttal to staff's recommendations and further Justification fui approval of the application.
Transportation Accessibility
The staff report states: `2,ocatirrg medium-and high-density residential housing along major travel corridors has shown to be agood
practice as residents have immediate access to businesses,services(retail,jobr,restaurants)and transit facilities."
Rebuttal:Multi-family development along transportation corridors does provide residents access to businesses and
services provided that those businesses and services are also located along a major travel corridor.For quick and
convenient access to exist between residential and commercial areas,both types of land uses must be near major travel
corridors.Changing the site to a commercial land use designation would help to facilitate quick and convenient access to
a small neighborhood center of 3.9 acres for the current and future residents along the Burns Road corridor both east
and west of the site and future residents north of the site along the Broadmoor corridor. Figure 4 (see below)was taken
from the draft plan and identifies the most immediate areas that commercial development of the site would serve.
to Ix
ir
}�
p o EASTON DR �... . •�..;a
OPQ�? a
C a
i
� a
• LA
\ \ z i
i Neigh Ar.
Figure 4. Neighborhood Commercial Service Areas.
There are other opportunities to provide high density residential lands along major travel corridors which City staff has
determined is a good practice. The lands just north of the site along the Broadmoor corridor would accomplish this
purpose.Figure 5 (next page) shows a long corridor that would significantly increase the acreage of high-density
residential lands along both Broadmoor and Burns. It should be noted that this land and adjoining areas are mostly
undeveloped,so impacts to existing residents would be minimal.
MARCH 27,2020 5
K N U TZF N TSK 2019 LLC (CPA 2019-001)
C.
ENGINEERING Project No.20052
r. 07—i;I,_ High
esig,,a'_ed High I r Density
1
� ngr,: Res tiential i t: Residential
h
�3
r Low Density Residential # ■ ■ ■ i•
'1
0
1 E
C3M--diem High
Density
Residential Bums
Figure S.Alternative High Density Residential areas
The draft comprehensive plan also includes two policies that support commercial development of the site.
• Policy LU-4-C of the draft plan states:"Encourage the development of walkable communities by increasing
mixed-use (commercial/residential)developments that provide households with neighborhood and commercial
shopping opportunities." Changing the designation of 3.9 acres at the intersection of two primary arterials
would provide existing and future neighborhoods along the Burns and Broadmoor corridors with some
neighborhood commercial services and would help to implement this policy.
• Policy LU-6-A of the draft plan states: "Encourage commercial and higher-density residential uses along major
corridors and leverage infrastructure availability." Both Broadmoor and Burns would be considered major
corridors. Commercial development of the 3.9-acre site at the intersection of these two streets would help to
implement the portion of the policy that speaks to encouraging commercial development along major
corridors.
A neighborhood commercial center needs to be located along a transportation corridor so that it is convenient to the
residents it serves.This site is well situated to provide services to growing neighborhoods along both the Burns and
Broadmoor corridors.Other lands equally well suited for high density residential development can be found along the
Broadmoor and Burns corridors.At least two policies within the draft plan are supportive of a commercial designation
of the site.
The argument of transportation accessibility should not be used to deny this comprehensive plan application.
Growth
The staff report indicates that Aledium-High-Density Residential land could be developed at a density of 21 units or
more per acre.The 3.9 acres included in the site could yield a total of 82 apartment units at that density.The staff report
also points out that more than 15,000 housing units will be needed within the City over the next 18 years.The 82 units
equates to one-half-of-one percent(0.005) of the total housing needs projected for the City.The site itself represents
about one percent of the land area designated in the draft plan for high-density residential housing.Given the inexact
nature of population projections,expected densities within future developments and the changing nature of household
size, taking 3.9 acres out of residential development within the entire City is insignificant.Additionally,there are several
opportunities within the northwest Pasco area that could easily accommodate additional high-density residential lands if
more high-density land is needed.Figure 6 (next page)shows several areas along or near the Broadmoor corridor that
could be designated for high-density residential uses.
MARCH 27, 2020 6
c~ K N U TU N TSK 2019 LLC(CPA 2019-001)
: •ENGINEERING Project No.20052
1 60�
DENT RC _
Cr
High Density
CD Residential
I
Medium
Residential
Areas where High
Low Density Density Residential
Residential Uses Could be
Expanded
Medium High • WaIIIIIIIIIIIII
Density
Residential
i
Figure 6. Additional High Density Residential Areas.
The areas located east of Broadmoor that are designated for High-Density Residential development in the draft plan are
all presently in agricultural use.The areas shown for potential expansion of high-density residential are also in
agricultural use,so there would be minimal impacts to existing residents if high-density residential lands were expanded
in this area.
To be clear,the Kidwells are not recommending that high-density residential land areas be expanded. Rather,they are
simply pointing out that there are several locations along the Broadmoor corridor that could easily accommodate
additional high-density residential areas and that reclassification of the Kidwell 3.9 acre property for commercial uses
should not be denied on the basis that it would reduce the inventory of apartment lands.
Utilities
Staff have indicated that a utility plan for sewer is presently underway and assumptions regarding the future use of the
site have already been calculated.The implication is that changes to the land use plan should not be made because utility
plans and the sewer plan would need to be reworked. In fact,the volume of sewage generated by apartments and the
volume of sewage that would be generated by commercial uses is about the same.Since different commercial uses
generate varying amounts of sewage,it is impossible to generate exact numbers at this point.However,based on the mix
of uses anticipated,a commercial development would generate sewage volumes as shown in Table 2(next page),which
is slightly less than the volume of sewage generated by apartments (see Table 3).This comparison assumes a car wash
and a restaurant,which are high-volume utility users.Other types of retail generate lesser amounts of sewage and so
could result in a significant reduction in the amount of sewage generated.
MARCH 27,2020 7
tf'KNUTUN TSI<2019 LLC(CPA 2019-001)
V--,ENGINEERING Project No.20052
I able 2: S'euage Generated by Con,mert al User
Type of Use Rate* Size of Facility Volume Generated
Service Station 10 gal/day 10 pumps 100 gal
Restaurant 50 gal/seat 100 seats 5,000 gal
Shopping Center 300 gal/1,000 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. 12,000 gal
Total 17,100 gallons
Table 3:.Seuage Gemiated by Residential Uses
Type of Use Rate* Density** Size of Volume
Facility Generated
Dwellings 100 gals/person 2.40 persons/household 82 units 19,680 gallons
*Data Source:Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design(August 2008)
**Data Source:2010 Census,reduced from 3.43 by factor of 70% for apartment use.
The amount of water needed for residential and commercial development is also similar.Both types of development
would require the installation of fire hydrants and would need adequate pressures and volumes to provide fire flow. Both
types of development may also require the installation of fire sprinkler systems.Since projected utility use for both high-
density residential and neighborhood commercial uses would be similar,the application should not be denied based on
utility planning considerations.
Past Planning Practice
The City of Pasco has maintained a practice of planning and zoning for commercial development at the intersection of
two primary arterials. Based on the current transportation plan, there are 23 such intersections within the City. Of
these,18 have a commercial plan designation on at least one of the four corners of the intersection.The present draft
plan does not call for any commercial development on any of the corners of the Burns and Broadmoor intersection.
Providing for commercial development on just one of the legs of the intersection would be in keeping with the City's
past planning practices.The attached Table 1 (see pages 3&4)provides a summary of the existing plan designations for
the intersections of primary arterials.
There are only four intersections that do not contain a commercial land use designation on at least one corner.They are
as follows:
• Road 100 and Argent.This area around this intersection has been previously developed with single-family
residences without leaving any undeveloped land area near the intersection for a commercial development
without impacting adjacent existing residential uses.
• Highway 395 and I-82.The land use designations surrounding the intersection of these two highways
designates the CBC campus as government/public land along the north side of I-82 and Low-Density
Residential land on the south side of 1-82 and reflects the existing pattern of development that has occurred
over time in this area.
• Third Avenue and Sylvester.This intersection is adjacent to public lands(city hall) and residential development.
While there are no commercial uses at this intersection,it is near the downtown area and numerous commercial
uses.
• Broadmoor and Burns. This intersection has existing low density residential development on the two eastern
legs of the intersection,while west of Broadmoor properties are presently undeveloped.
The three other intersections that do not contain commercial lands are special cases where commercial development is
not appropriate.
The Burns/Broadmoor intersection has vacant properties on two of the four legs of the intersection.Providing
neighborhood commercial development on one leg of the Broadmoor/Burns intersection would serve the needs of a
growing neighborhood and is consistent with long established planning practices within the City.
MARCH 27, 2020 8
f-K N UTU N TSK 2019 LLC (CPA 2019-001)
ENGINEERING Project No. 20052
Commtmi T Support
The City has received support for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment from area residents and land
developers.They expressed a preference for this use over multi-family development and noted that presently,the
existing neighborhoods lack convenient access to commercial services. Other letters spoke to the Kidwell's proven track
record to operate businesses successfully. Developers of the adjacent property also expressed support for the change.
Neighbor's Opposition
The City received a petition from residents living in the development located east of Broadmoor.They indicated that dte
proximity of commercial services to their neighborhood is undesirable.Part of the objection was based on the intensity
of commercial use,which would create impacts inconsistent with low-density residential use.These objections would be
reasonable if the change in land use was taking the site from a low-density residential designation to a commercial one.
However, that is not the case. Leaving the site designated for multi-family development at 21 ucvts/acre would result in
buildings of three or four stories that would have similar noise, lighting and traffic impacts.In fact,commercial
development would have the advantage of being single story construction and so would be less visually obtrusive than a
multi-story apartment building.Commercial development would also benefit the neighborhood through the provision of
convenient commercial services.
7,Uliag
The Kidwells are ready to move ahead with their plans for development of a gas/convenience store as soon as the
necessary approvals are secured,putting the property to a beneficial use.There is a demand for commercial services that
has not yet been provided in the neighborhood as attested to in the letters of support from surrounding residents.As the
adjacent neighborhoods continue to grow, this demand will increase.The Kidwells are ready to meet this demand now.
Other properties in northwest Pasco that are designated for commercial development are years away from development
since the),will need to wait for utilities to arrive.
Sum aLy
The Kidwells respectfully request approval of their comprehensive plan request to allow for commercial development of
the site_
• The business would be located at the intersection of two principal arterials,providing a convenient location for
neighborhood commercial services.
• The change in the plan for this 3.9 acres would have minimal impact on the City's current planning efforts for
increased high-density housing.
• Other lands in the area are equally suited for high-density housing.
• The amount of sewage generated by a high-density residential project and a neighborhood commercial project
are similar,so there would be no impact to the City's utility planning efforts.
• approval of the amendment would be consistent with the City's past planning practices of designating
commercial uses at the intersection of two principal arterials.
• The proposal has the support of many neighborhood residents and would satisfy an unmet demand for
commercial services in the area.
• Impacts associated with a neighborhood commercial center would be similar to those associated with high-
density residential development.
MARCH 27, 2020 9
1f-KNUTHN TSK 2019 LLC (CPA 2019-001)
lf: ENGINEERI NG Project No.20052
APPENDIX A
Future Land Use Map with Data
MARCH 27, 2020 A-1
TSK2019LLC PROPERTY Future Land Use Map
Department of Community 8
Economic Development w `
s
—_ Sim—'-.-•9 Y- -
F"NWN COUNTY p
4 �� 1OTAL HDR ACREAGE IN CITY
e i s FT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USEPLAN
+ =304 ACRES
SK PROPOSAL WOULD REMOVE
_
j 4 ACRES
NET REMAINING ACRES IN HDR
=300 ACRES
NET PERCENTAGE CHANGE
��•� �, � 'amu � a �
•nr
Richland
Hr l \ �•� ` V'
e CC
4. -
LowDensltyResldential q
Mixed Residential
_Mixed Residential d CommerG.i
-High Density Residential
-Cerrlmercial Kanne.,Ck
IndusMal
-Open Space&Parks Broadmoor Planning Area DISCLAIMER
-Airport-Reserve r---t The
tenure bind uae map b InterWed to iluauaro die general lorweon wnru w�iucouNTr
CFty LimNa and dbu=-`n of the various eatergodw of land uses ant=pe0ed
-DNR•Reserve by IM Comprehensim Plein pdioes wet the Yk of Pie plan
- ®Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary eENTON COU— t
Govemmenl d Public city d Pcepo-Funaa Lend Uae Map(DRAFT)I Updated:May 2018
K N U TH N TSK 2019 LLC(CPA 2019-001)
�V. ,EN G INE E R ING Project No.20052
APPENDIX B
Major Street Plan
MARCH 27,2020 D-1
S �
F p
, � g
Legend _� ~�' n l•.
Pnn pal AnenWs
Mru Arteaals Major Street Plan
Collector
KNUTUN
my ENGINEERING
MARCH 27, 2020 D-1
City of Pasco
Planning Commission
March 9, 2020
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in support of Todd and Stacy Kidwell requested zone change for
parcel#115-180-065.
1 live off of Broadmoor Blvd at 9912 Buckingham Drive,Pasco,very close to the
proposed location.
I believe it would be a great location for a store. Broadmoor Blvd is over loader]
with houses and doesn't have a lot of Retail on this side of the freeway. With
Road 68 being so congested, it would be nice to have a convenience store and
more retail closer by.
I am in complete favor of this proposed re-zone.
Thank you
Terrah Jackson
aFP is [; Stacy< skkidwell@gmail.com>
New gas station/mini mart
1 message
Dave Greeno <ccolre@aol.com> Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:06 AM
To: tskkidwell@gmail.com
To whom it may concern'
My name is Dave Greeno, I represent Big Sky Developers and also own adjacent p rcels next to proposed
new gas station/mini mart that Todd and Stacey Kidwell are requesting zoning for. I a in complete favor of
this and hope the city will grant them the ability to do so. Big Sky Developers has de eloped several
hundred lots in the surrounding area and believe this is a perfect idea and location f( r the proposed.
Sincerely
Dave Greeno
Sent from my Phone
To:City of Pasco Planning Commission
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment-#115-180-065
Date: March 9,2020
Commission Members,
As a resident of Spencer Estates Residential Development, we support the amendment to change the
Land Use designation of the 3.9 Acre parcel at the Northwest corner of Burns Road and Broadmoor
Boulevard (Parcel #115-180-065)from a high density residential to mixed residential/commercial in
Pasco, Washington. This change and its intended development of a gas station/mini mart service will
provide a great resource to the fast-growing neighborhoods to the West off Burns Road, Kohler Road,
Dent Road and all the surrounding areas. At this time the residents in the surrounding area are forced
to cross the freeway to the Circle K on Road 100 or travel east to Road 68 to find similar services. Both
these locations can be difficult at all hours of the day. With the increasing high-density residential
development and the construction of school in the nearby area,these services will be harder and harder
to access. We support the change in land use and support the much-needed services this change will
provide.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Greg and Chanda Jablonski
7005 Sandy Ridge Road
Pasco, WA 99301 11VI
dt' 9
Cc:Todd and Stacy Kidwell
Paul Knutzen
From: Tim Bush <tim@bushcarwash.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 5:22 PM
To: Paul Knutzen
Subject: Rd 100
Paul, lots of potential economic development going on,feeling like road 100 has huge potential if Pasco will support, it
will also take heat off 68, which has been good for me. If city does right thing rd 100 has similar potential.
On a personal note I'm interested in a 3rd Bush Car Wash location somewhere from hwy north probably a half mile. The
property you told me about could work, could be potentially a Roasters as well and or a sandwich shop depending on
place and deal. Just in BCW and Roasters, could easily be 30 new jobs or more as well. Lots of houses need lots of
services.
Blessings!
Tim Bush
Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart.
Sent from my iPhone
1
City of Pasco
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
March 10, 2020
To whom it may concern:
Todd &Stacy Kidwell have my support for the zone change for parcel # 115-180-065. The growing
neighborhood is in need of a store/gas station with in a short drive and to eliminate having to drive thru
the congestion of Rd 68.
Please support the zone change from high density residential to Commercial.
Thank you
Heidi Ellerd
11705 Quail Run Rd - Pasco
City of Pasco
Planning Commission
March 5,2020
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in my support for the proposed rezone of the corner of Burns and Broadmoor.
My family live and work just North of that corner. We pass by that intersection several times a day.
We believe it would be a great addition to retail amenities desired in the neighborhood.
Based on the quality and cleanliness of the applicant's previous stores, we believe this Commercial retail
space will only bring value and convenience to all the people living and working in this growing
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Mark Hammer
1611 Richview Drive
Pasco,WA 99301
City of Pasco
Planning Commission
March 9, 2020
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in support of Todd and Stacy Kidwell requested zone changefor
parcel#115-180-065.
1 live off of Broadmoor Blvd at 9912 Buckingham Drive,Pasco,very close to the
proposed location.
1 believe it would be a great location for a store. Broadmoor Blvd is overloaded
with houses and doesn't have a lot of Retail on this side of the freeway. With
Road 68 being so congested, it would be nice to have a convenience store and
more retail closer by.
I am in complete favor of this proposed re-zone.
Thankyou
TerrahJackson
To City of Pasco— Planning Commission
March 13, 2020
I live at 12231 Scenic View Drive in Pasco and would love to see a store within a close drive of
our neighborhood. We are in favor of the requested zone change for Parcel#'115-180-065 to
Commercial. This would be an ideal spot for a store and conveniently located for all the
surrounding houses to be able to bypass the congestion of Rd 68.
Please consider this zone change as it would add value & convenience to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Thank you,
Lonnie Montes
03/09/2020
BJ &Taryn Morgan
9707 Nottingham Dr
Pasco WA 99301
Attention City of Pasco Planning Commission
We are in favor of the rezone request by Todd & Stacy Kidwell. We would love to see more commercial
growth in our area. The addition of the convenient store to would be a welcomed!
Best Regards
BJ Morgan
Daniele Pardini
9908 Chinook Court
Pasco, WA 99301
daniele07@hotmail.com
509.521.4448
March 9, 2020
Pasco City Council
525 N. 3rd Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Todd and Stacy Kidwell request for re-zoning in Pasco
Dear Pasco City Council:
Please consider this a letter of support for the re-zoning request submitted by Todd and Stacy Kidwell.
My husband and I built a new home with New Traditions last year, directly across the street from the
property they are requesting to re-zone for a commercial Shell gas station. We live in the Columbia
Terrace neighborhood at 9908 Chinook Ct. in Pasco and built here understanding that it would contain a
mix of residential and commercial properties in the vicinity.
Ideally, we would have preferred other single residential homes with similar values in all areas
surrounding us. However, I know the Kidwell's have been successful with the other businesses they
own/manage in the area and I have no doubt that they would build a very nice, clean and well thought out
establishment. I didn't expect commercial property directly across the street, but don't think it's
necessarily a bad thing if well designed and thought out considering traffic flow and safety of the homes
surrounding it. I also understand that the alternative is condos,apartments or townhomes that I am not
at all in favor of having directly across from my home. With that can bring temporary renters, lowered
home values, more crime and other issues.
I also wanted to mention that since we built our home last year, traffic along Burns road and Broadmoor
has been bad at all hours. Part of the issue is loud and fast vehicles in/out of the sand dunes, which
should subside once those areas are established. We really need a street light on Broadmoor and Burns
road to help control traffic flow and avoid accidents. Especially with the new schools being built on that
street.
Respectfully,_
r
Daniele Pardini
City of Pasco
Planning Commission
Rezone Parcel# 115-180-065
March 10 2020
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in support of Todd & Stacy Kidwell's request to rezone the corner of Broadmoor & Burns.
This location would be perfect for a store. Our neighborhood is in need of more commercial properties
as so many homes are surrounding us. I am in complete favor of the rezone request.
Thank you,
Brandi Smillie
9904 Mia Lane Pasco
To:City of Pasco Planning Commission
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment--#115-180-065
Date:03-09-2020
Commission Members,
As a resident of Sanderson Heights Residential Development,I support the amendment to change the
Land Use designation of the 3.9-acre parcel at the Northwest corner of Burns Road and Broadmoor
Boulevard (Parcel#115-180-065)from a High density Residential to Mixed Residential/Commercial in
Pasco,Washington.This change and its intended development of a Gas Station/Mini-Mart service will
provide a great resource to the fast growing neighborhoods to the west off Burns Road, Kohler Road,
Dent Road and all the surrounding areas.At this time,the residents in the surrounding areas are forced
to cross the freeway to the Circle K on Road 100 or travel East to Road 68 to find similar services. Both
these locations can be difficult at all hours of the day. With the increasing High Density Residential
development and the construction of schools in the near area, these services will be harder and harder
to access. I support the change in Land Use and support the much-needed services this change will
provide.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,
Calin Tebay
7320 Sandy Ridge Rd-
Pasco o WA 99301
Z .
03-09-2020
Cc: Todd and Stacy Kidwell
Planning Commission
City of Pasco
March 13, 2020
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in support of Todd and Stacy Kidwell requested zone change for
parcel# 115-180-065. Todd and Stacy are long time Pasco residents who have
supported our community successfully with small businesses. As a 4 decade
resident myself I fully support their request.
I live at 6010 Westmoreland Lane, Pasco, very close to the proposed location.
A store at this location would be a great asset to the growing neighborhoods. We
definitely need more retail instead of apartments or high density residential.
I support this requested zone change.
Thank you
Brooke Whittaker
March 3, 2020
To City of Pasco — Planning Commission
ATTENTION: Re-Zone of Parcel# 115180065
I live at 250 Pisces Dr. Pasco, WA 99301, North of the propo ed
site of Burns/Broadmoor.
I approve the re zone request to Commercial opposed to High
Density Residential. The growing community is in need of g; s
and snack conveniences with in short drives from our homes.�
This would help eliminate the need to drive down Road 68 fot
those needs.
The proposed site would be in a nice area for us and our
neighbors to take advantage of those conveniences.
Please consider the re zoning of this corner, as it would add
great retail services to our community.
Thank you
Justin Young
250 Pisces Dr
Pasco, WA '
To City of Pasco—Planning Commission
March 13, 2020
live at 12231 Scenic View Drive in Pasco and would love to see a store within a close drive of
our neighborhood. We are in favor of the requested zone change for Parcel# 115-180-065 to
Commercial. This would be an ideal spot for a store and conveniently located for all the
surrounding houses to be able to bypass the congestion of Rd 68.
Please consider this zone change as it would add value &convenience to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Thank you,
Lonnie Monies
1
II
-Ahey-
Who riows what
are doing on road 100
and Dent?
1 heard them-,s to be a qss statior
fight theye
i heard tfer,2 i�go x n -a Cas sla!,v�
Man?IAZ'Zikay
Sarah 3-.-j
otter&T, 4,4"y tv
to haw-a slalaon uvfel
Mmie Mackay,er:- it s az!ualiq 9-3�-g to
r. -.c�c cn iren�ent for me�o get
wnk fc---Irr:
MAVW,W-4*;ry
Sarah mwvem if-,v s!1?vol.h.j
assume fr-.-) w., In h! Q,.�t a
�-Cpqsm;c:-3becayse of the ne'..;
�fIcinlul ,-7 !rat tteips 44,ozl,
i4 Si35%?*�nq to apiirlm4�,%!S bil I Th.14
crliv3n.. -c TO llam&i h-2415RQ
Either ray "s qvnq to I-*,-a Ci.UST M a
wANT OUT Or J-�-REt
Blue:hVic'!dens,l�
yellwv-
Put pie D,.,w*elu bi st-, detvtct
i.
Vicki mOnlezgutc-zi,m;sl bf-,&hele
the'Lt'lvie s&�a3;e0l go rrayW,
r1a Sarver[Rt,—.danT ance told J5 a?a
M—C*Tirg PIG!l'fii LIOUghl taAd
past Dead 4C-tie 3rd!-,gh SC1,00!l J.1st
jently ara:�-m
Heidi stuit yes,lnej land P30
allolhc-hign I t1link they I
want to�atte V?r.,s cns", and ready
IWWe oAn!n-- ,�n'fie boric
Stud
Sn,my df vvhc famiy. sad
bley boigm Pwl C'!' j gas stat-on
But ITS zorte'l fzw 46*hey
tart Wt-i chanasd M,czrft-wvcal�l for
Mev PJrpose. 3�'�-.-ousiqs
Wam
Heidi grzpev�ne
'v-w- ave!`a-d Today as
Marie Olackall,zq*ee ewlv%yow otner
stzaeme,i's, t'neF belle,put a tight<n.
And sc
' -
.rw- I-vri 'ane,5 it's bad nas%
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
00 a C;ry"f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
1IrPoxkCity Hall —525 North Third Avenue— Council Chambers
DATE:THURSDAY, March 19, 2020
6:00 PM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MF# CPA 2020-001— Urban Growth Area Expansion
Background
As part of the ongoing Comprehensive Planning update efforts, the City of Pasco has been
developing an application to Franklin County to increase our Urban Growth Area (UGA). Under
the Washington State Growth Management Act (BCW 36.70A.110), Counties are responsible for
designating, expanding and reducing Urban Growth Area boundaries.
The designation of the Urban Growth Area boundary shall be based on the population projects
provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). The Urban Growth
Boundary should include the appropriate zoning and densities to permit the projected growth
over the next twenty years.
A significant component of our Urban Growth Area and Comprehensive Plan includes the
development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). ). The EIS is a required document
under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process that evaluates the possible
impacts of a proposed action. Several different ways of achieving the goal must be explored
and contrasted before a final alternative is chosen. The EIS alternatives provide a framework for
analyzing impacts and making comparisons among different land use options.
During the fall of 2018, the City (Lead Agency) sought agency and public comment on the
proposed scope of the Draft EIS. Over thirty comments were received and used to develop and
refine proposed alternatives of the Urban Growth Area expansion, specifically Alternative #3.
As a reminder, the following alternatives were identified:
1. Alternative 1, No Action
2. Alternative 2,Traditional Growth Target
3. Alternative 3, Compact Growth Target
Attached to the staff report are the preliminary findings (summary) of the environmental
impacts of each alternative. This is a high-level summary documenting the environmental
impacts and major issues from the identified alternatives as compared to goals of the Growth
Management Act.
1
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept public comments on the Urban Growth
Area and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and continue the public hearing to the
June 18th Planning Commission meeting,
2
Table 1: Summary of Alternatives & Goals of the Growth Management Act
Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) Alternative 1:No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Urban Growth: Encourage development in Least future growth in the Focused growth within the Focused growth within the
urban areas where adequate public City. UGA. UGA with higher density.
facilities and services exist or can be Dispersed future growth
provided in an efficient manner. throughout the city and
_
low rise pattern. _
Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inappropriate Dispersed land Growth within the UGA, but Concentrated and compact
conversion of undeveloped land into development patterns that of suburban nature will growth within the UGA,
sprawling, low-density development. would exceed the UGA to result in sprawl. planned areas would reduce
accommodate growth, sprawl.
added sprawl.
Transportation: Encourage efficient multi- Retains current Adds new transportation Adds new transportation
modal transportation systems based on Transportation plans with improvements to improve improvements to improve
regional priorities and coordinated with the limited improvements. connectivity and street connectivity and street
City Plan. design that supports urban design that supports urban
environment. environment.
Adds multi-modal travel
options. _
Housing: Encourage the availability of Housing not adequate to Housing meets the 20-year Housing meets the 20-year
affordable housing to all economic meet the 20-year demand. demand with limited housing demand with a variety of
segments of the population, promote a Disbursed and low rise types. housing types and
variety of residential densities and housing pattern of housing residential densities.
types, and encourage preservation of development.
existing housing stock.
Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) Alternative 1: Alternative 2 Alternative 3
No Action
Economic Development: Encourage Current economic Economic opportunities are Economic opportunities are
economic development consistent with development trends identified in the plan. identified in the plan.
adopted Plans, promote economic continue. Some employment will occur Additional commercial and
opportunity for all citizens, especially for Employment to occur in in the limited commercial mixed-use areas will
the unemployed and the disadvantaged, the existing commercial areas. accommodate more
and encourage growth in areas and industrial areas. employment.
experiencing insufficient economic growth,
all within the capacity of the state's natural
resources, public services and public
facilities.
_Open Space and Recreation: Encourage Maintains existing parks Maintains existing parks and Maintains existing parks and
the retention of open space and and Natural Open Space. natural open space and adds natural open space and adds
development of recreation opportunities, Recreation opportunities additional park land to serve additional park land to serve
conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase will be provided based on future growth. future growth.
access to natural resource lands and water, the Parks and Recreation's
and develop parks. adopted Level of Service.
Environment: Protect the environment and Environmental qualities Environmental qualities are Environmental qualities are
enhance the City's high quality of life, are protected based on the protected based on the protected based on the
including air and water quality, and the current regulations and current regulations and current regulations and
availability of water. development pattern. development pattern. development pattern.
A sprawl type growth will A low density growth pattern A higher density
involve more land for will involve more land for development will involve
development, resulting in development, resulting in less land, reduce vehicular
higher vehicular traffic that higher vehicular traffic that traffic, and will reduce
could negatively impact could negatively impact the impact to air quality and
the air quality. air quality. ozone.
Goals (RCW 3630A.020) Alternative 1: Alternative 2 Alternative 3
No Action
Public Facilities and Service. Adequate Public facilities continue to Additional public facilities Additional public facilities
public facilities to serve the development. serve the current will be required in certain will be required in certain
development pattern. areas for urban areas for urban
development. development.
Public facilities will be more
efficient due to the more
densely planned
development pattern.
Historic Preservation. Identify and Historical or Historical or archaeologically Historical or archaeologically
encourage the preservation of lands, sites archaeologically significant significant sites or structures significant sites or structures
and structures that have historical or sites or structures are are protected in the planning are protected in the planning
archaeological significance. protected under the phase, and also under the phase, and also under the
current regulations during current regulations during current regulations during
construction phase. construction phase. construction phase.
ALTERNATIVE #2
N
W+E
FRANKLIN COUNTY 9 gS
p �q73
F CLARK
K
A m O ESERET <' —•S
Cr W p r
E
YQ' I .�.r...---- u IL
BURNS•~�;� W BURNS ■ FOS WELLS
LU —
7
�. v
HARRIS
APE 2��X1� ' .^. �, t 1 �q^' P. :, •zi
Richland \°
or SSL t i
7 _ s �'•
'' 5
t� VIN O ING O `\.395 r0 IT. SONVI) v' <<�!�„} 1�•.�}PS',r �J.O'(J
M y}SHA DS N , r� x 4 !;,•„ 12 CO.FP
o art _ _ `'ti w --y QPS
m }
LI OLA 0 PE '`•� I LAN �\`�O.
1 m i m
Legend E
o-, r s
� s, b ` ti� o'
l._....City Limits RK a.�cTl
Current Urban Growth Area O ? ) m — re�
Proposed Urban Growth Area(Alt 2) _\ " •O t
``.•,.;. ryi .. _ ,nrl_. o SLY[
Airport Reserve i ColumOlaRiver .I 1 A
"'�.���_�� -1 w,.IFi.r�... � .' ,• QP ape
-Commercial
_Mixed Residential&Commercial `` ^`j •.g,_ C &' a'12
Low Density Residential 2 OQf AitGp�Ps'
Mixed Residential
High Density Residential -
C�
Industrial -
_Government&Public \' - WALLA WALLA COUNTY
-Open Space&Parks
DNR Reserve PENTON COUNTY U t 2
I
Miles
LU-1 DRAFT Future Land Use Map cityof i Pasco
c
FRANKLIN COUNTY � N
W!
O � TR"IJRD
oo/ l /� � - D••• BURNS tf?W-i LRD tFO4TQ,�M1TLLS RO
R Q
l.
: q �9 ..,
Richland 4 p �a q \ E xEOR
TRD ..-
1tet- ADM 3
—
y
'� 811 R DR •7 RM RNETT D T\ 12
Legend $ ; L $ LE ST w = f
" _
Land Use Classifications r jdltV — xosr ;
Airport Reserve - ,t f 12
_Commercial °I ai `$v. s �s
DNR Reserve
High Density Residential , ' _ \
Industrial
p t
Cofumb7a R+ver � I g \\� ! I�
Low Density Residential ""�^�•�•-- _ a i 1 w _ I R1'er
Medium Density Residential
-Medium High Density Residential IV
Sir
_Mixed Residential/Commercial 9
�
/
i
®Mixed Use interchange `^ ¢ s' mar
Kennewick h Rr
®Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use Regional ° L'
Office /
Open Space/Parks
-Public/Quasi-Public WALLA WALLA COUNTY
City Limits
D 2
Proposed Urban Growth Area t
BENTON COUNTY Miles
CONNECTING HERE WITH THERE
41kPORToF
EXHIBIT A Port of Pasco Administrative Office
Phone:509.547.3378
RECEIVED Fax:509.54 co.org
PASCO portolpasco�portooinseo Blvd.1110 Osprey Pointe Blvd,
Suite 201
FEB 18 2020 P.O. Box 769
February 14,2020 C[] Pasco, Washington U.S.A.99301
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC OEVELOPMEW Port CoJean mmissioners
flyckman
Planning Commission James T.Klindworth
City of Pasco Vicki Gordon
PO Box 293 Executive Director
Pasco, WA 99301 Handy Hayden
Subject: Comments to Urban Growth Area Expansion
Honorable Commissioners,
The Port of Pasco is the primary economic development organization within Franklin County. As
such we strongly support the City of Pasco's request for adding industrial land to the Urban
Growth Area (UGA)to promote economic development and meet a number of Growth
Management Act (GMA) goals in Pasco and Franklin County. There are many reasons to
support this expansion:
1. Large scale, modern industrial development requires large contiguous parcels (20 acres
or greater), nearby utilities, access to transportation (highway and rail), and for heavy
industry, a buffer from residential property. While there is industrial land in Pasco and in
the greater Tri-Cities, much of the industrial property does not meet these criteria. In
the current Pasco UGA, much of the available property is in the Commercial Avenue
corridor and will likely be developed soon making it unavailable for the long term
planning contemplated by GMA.
2. Certain large industrial tracts are unavailable or very limited in their development. For
example at the Tri-Cities Airport, we own approximately 220 acres of industrial land, but
the land is in the runway protection area. While airport rules allow industrial
development, it is restricted to the benefit of airport operations. Another 640 acre tract
of industrial land east of the new Autozone is owned by the state Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) who has said that the land is too valuable as agricultural land to be
used for industrial growth.
3. Recent agency purchases—the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation recently
purchased 165 acres of industrial land located in the Commercial Avenue area. This is
prime industrial land that will now likely become a casino. In 2016, DNR acquired 450
acres of industrial property within the UGA near the Snake River(separate from the
parcel described previously), with no plans to pursue industrial development. It should
be noted that neither of these governmental purchasers sought input from the local
governments prior to making the purchase.
r uu��oraua��wi i r re•r�ortH
Pasco Planning Commission
February 14, 2020
Page 2 of 2
4. The additional land to be added to the UGA within the Highway 395 corridor is just
north of existing industrial development. All of this land is already in an industrial land
use designation but within Franklin County. The question then becomes whether it is
better for this industrial land to be developed outside or within the UGA. We believe it
is better to develop the land within the city limits. By neighboring industrial growth with
existing industrial development, a hub is created that reduces sprawl, reduces local
traffic congestion, and takes advantage of complimentary industrial development such
as cold storage facilities for food processors.
5. Creating a strong community—where industrial development occurs matters when
creating a stable tax base for a community to provide needed services.The per capita
assessed value in Franklin County is$40,000 per person. In Benton County that number
is over 50% higher at $61,000 per person. Franklin County is also a net exporter of
talent, exporting 6% (net) of its workforce each day to neighboring counties. Keeping
the industry and the jobs that come with it in the same community where the workers
are housed provides a more socially equitable outcome.
6. Aiding regional transportation -each day 11,000 workers from Franklin County
commute to Benton County to work. The majority of this workforce is heading to
Hanford, the Tri-Cities Research District and the Horn Rapids Industrial Park. Further
regional reliance on industrial development located distant from workforce housing in
Pasco will further clog roads. Companies will locate closer to their workforce if the right
land is available, but that requires a UGA expansion.
7. Balanced request—the City of Pasco request to bring industrial land into the UGA is
balanced by lands taken out of an industrial designation to more accurately reflect their
development potential.This includes new designations of public reserve for property
adjacent to the Tri-Cities Airport and lands farmed indefinitely by DNR. Other lands are
transitioning to other uses. The Port owns several waterfront parcels that are more
appropriate for mixed use than heavy industrial.
Goals of the GMA include reducing sprawl, regional transportation and economic development.
The City of Pasco request for adding industrial lands in the UGA is supportive of these goals and
should be approved.
Respectfully,
POR J_MCO
Randy Hayden, P.E.
Executive Director
u:\port of pasco\ricliette—op u@a-2012-0214,do
EXHIBIT B RECEIVED
To: City of Pasco MAK U J 2020
Community Development Department COMb1UN ITY& ECONOGIIC OEUELOP1,1EN7
P.O. Box 293,
525 N 3'6 Ave,
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Notice of Public Hearing— Urban Growth Area Expansion
Dear Planning Commission
I wish to expression my opposition to the proposed urban growth area expansion, Specifically the area
of 2,810 acres North of Burns Road.
1. The expansion further North will increase the congestion on RD 68 and its arterial roads of
Burden RD, Sandifur Parkway, RD's 44 and 36, and the corresponding interchanges of Rd 68 and
100 and hwy182.The interchange already gets backed up onto hwy 182 from exit 7 and 9 during
evening commute hours. The already planned expansion west of RD 100 will further congest
that traffic as well.
2. Expansion north will also put a strain on city services, police and fire and rescue. That can
remediated by hiring,buying and building more of necessary components of personnel,
equipment and trucks. Additional Schools and teachers will be needed as well. Again more
spending. More bonds, more taxes to approve, more funding to secure.
3. Expansions that have already taken place have brought in increasing number of real estate
speculators that are building and buying homes to rent, rather than being affordable for families
to purchase. The number of quick build storage units can confirm that.
I am for progress and growth to meet the needs of prospering area. However, before expansion goes
further there need to be plans set to accommodate the logistics of traffic and that the funding is
available for the required service needs. We also need to build a community that helps build people and
families. I appreciate the work that those who serve the city have done to make Pasco a good place to
live and have a family. Please do the ground work planning to prevent problems rather than trying
remediate them when they appear.
Best Regards,
Neil Withers
EXHIBIT C
THANKSGIVING LIMITED PARNTERSHIP
P.O. BOX 3027
PASCO WA 99302-3027
(509) 545-3355
RECEIVED
March 7,2020 MAK O S 2020
COMMUNITY 8 ECON001C DEVELOPG1EN1
Mr.Jacob Gonzalez
City of Pasco
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco WA 99301
Re:Notice of Public Hearing—Urban Growth Area Expansion
Dear Jacob:
This letter is on behalf of the Thanksgiving Limited Partnership (TLP . As Managing Partner, I ask that staff and the
planning commission, reconsider the current Urban Growth Boundary to include all of the TLP property,as previously
approved in Resolution 3845 dated June 18, 2018.
TLP is an entity comprised of Tippett family siblings. The Tippett family has been real estate investors in the City of
Pasco since the 1970's. TLP owns +/- 140 acres of land immediately adjacent to City limits,and immediately north
of 160 acres recently purchased by the Confederate Tribes of the Colville Reservation. The westerly property
boundary (approximately 2,000 lineal feet) fronts Capital Avenue. The land is currently zoned AP-20 and Rural
Residential 5 Acre Tracts.
Capital Avenue is a fully developed public road that was funded by President Obama's American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. It has been the partners understanding that the Capital Avenue project was intended to serve
as stimulus for industrial development in the City.
In 2016-2017,TLP became aware of the need for a community soccer complex in the City. The partnership had an
idea that would involve the City developing a community soccer complex,which would also act as a buffer between
our residential neighbors to the north, and any future commercial/industrial development to the south.
After a series of positive meetings with City Parks, City Planning, and City Management, the City provided the
partnership with a preliminary design for the complex (see attached soccer complex design). After obtaining
approval from the neighbors,the partnership then provided the City with a proposal to sell+/-30 acres of land zoned
rural residential 5 acre tracts,which included a portion of the water right,and a shared interest in the irrigation well
(see attached Sale Proposal dated September 7,2017).
The proposal was well received by the City. The partnership per the advice of both,the City, and the County met
with the neighbors to discuss the nature of a soccer complex next door to them. The general consensus from the
neighbors was that they would find it an acceptable use. The partnership then applied to have 120 acres included
in the UGB. The application was approved by the planning commission in Resolution 3845 (as shown below).
Mr.Jacob Gonzalez
Page zof4
March 9, Z0ZU
Resolution 31W5 Exhibit#1
AMP
gxg
(2018)
The commitment made bvTOtothe City was todevelop the property asfollows:
TLP—120 acre
|nthe most recent Notice n/Public Hearing, the City unexpectedly announced that the uGehad been modified to
include only 40 of the original 120 TLP acres proposed to be in the UGB(as shown below).
Mr.Jacob Gonzalez
Page 3 of 4
March 9,2020
DRAFT Proposed Urban Growth Area oty �nasco
TLP-120 aces
f7 .�,.;
Coy
timer%urma cvu mArae ``+• ...,.w...
�Rv{nsmURUnGrvwYrMeO ay„r.�.w..un�+�iw_-xo.o.-a.> c,.r..�,.>•. d '!�
We have come to understand that over time the City's interest in a soccer complex at this location has waned due
to acquisition of land on A Street (to our knowledge this site has no irrigation source or water rights). While TLP
respects the City's decision to shift its focus elsewhere, the partners do not want to give up on the notion of a soccer
complex as a land use buffer between its neighbors, and are in the process of obtaining costs to develop a soccer
complex as a family legacy project.
Furthermore,per RCW 36.70A.110,the TLP property is postured to utilize existing sewer and water infrastructure
available in Capital Avenue. To include the sewer lift station installed for the AutoZone project,which we understand
was adequately sized to accomodate the TLP property.
RCW 36.70A.110 Paragraph(3)Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth
that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already
characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and
services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources,
and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new
fully contained communities as defined by RCW 36.70A.350.
It also satisfies a City planning goal as defined in Appendix III of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under the heading
Growth Management Mandate, which states "Encourage development of urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner".
Over the years TLP has worked diligently and intelligently on how to develop this property. It appears as though all
this effort has somehow been lost in the process. TLP remains committed to develop the property as described
above. Therefore, I ask again that staff and the planning commission reconsider the current UGB to include all 120
TLP acres.
Mr.Jacob Gonzalez
Page 4 of 4
March 9,2020
I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for its service to the citizens of Pasco, and for giving this matter ample
consideration, and lastly, I apologize that I cannot be at the hearing in person to deliver this message.
Sincerely,
Robert M.Tippett,Managing Partner
PC: Dave Zabel I
Rick White
Alexander
Alan 0.Campbell++
LAW GROUP
May 14, 2020
Via Email (whiter(awasco-wa.gov; gonza1ezib(0-),pasco-wa..qov)
and US Mail
Wso OR ear Member
City of Pasco Also State Bar of CA Member
Community Development Department -Hong ry, red
P.O. Box 293 .+Retired
525 N. Third Ave.
Pasco, 'IVA 99301
Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez
AND TO:
City of Pasco Planning Commission
P.O. Box 293
525 N. Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson
RE: Comments on CPA 2020-01, the Proposed (Modified) City of Pasco UGA
Expansion
Our Clients: Property Owner: Fred Olberding
Purchaser/Developer: Big Sky Developers, LLC
Dear Sirs:
Introduction and Background
Our office represents Mr. Fred Olberding who owns property north of Burns Road
adjacent to the current Pasco city limits and slated for inclusion in the City of Pasco's
("City" or "Pasco") UGA expansion currently being considered by the City of Pasco and
its Planning Commission as part of its required periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan.
Our office also represents Big Sky Developers, LLC currently under contract to acquire
the property and develop it for residential use. Collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A
is a Franklin County parcel map and the City's draft October 2019 Future Land Use Map
showing the property at issue (the "Property"). The Property currently is under contract
to be sold to Big Sky Developers, LLC for future residential development contingent upon
the property being included in Pasco's UGA and zoned for residential development.
halversonNW.com
HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C.
Yakima Office:405 E.Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 2255o I Yakima,WA 98907 I P)509.248.6030 1 0 509.453.688o
Sunnyside Office:910 Franklin Avenue,Suite i I PO Box 210 1 Sunnyside,WA 98944 1 P)So9.837,5302 10 509.837,2465
City of Pasco
Community Development Department
Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez
City of Pasco Planning Commission
Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson
May 14, 2020
Page 2
CPA 2018-03, a proposal to expand the City's urban growth area, was originally submitted
in June of 2018, The City's original Future Land Use Map included the Property within
the City's expanded UGA with a land use designation of Low Density Residential
consistent with all the surrounding property in the area. The City now proposes to reduce
its UGA expansion in accordance with a draft (updated) Future Land Use Map dated
October 2019 attached as Exhibit B. The proposed new Future Land Use Map, without
specific notice to our client and without notice being republished or recirculated in
accordance with SEPA and GMA mandates, now proposes to designate an approximately
30-acre portion of the Property (highlighted in red on the attached Future Land Use Map)
as "Commercial" rather than Low Density Residential property as,originally proposed.
Our clients are opposed to the proposed Commercial designation and believe that
such a designation is contrary to the goals of the state's Growth Management Act, would
be a clearly erroneous land use designation and is being proposed without adequate
public notice and without consideration of the as-built environment. Our clients would
request that the entire 80-acre Property within the City's proposed UGA remain
designated Low Density Residential as originally proposed for the reasons set forth
below.
Please consider this letter a specific and continuing request for special notice of all maps,
recommendations, hearings and meetings relating to the City's UGA expansion requests,
including those relating to the Property.
The Olberding Property Should Remain Designated Low Density Residential and
The City's Proposed Commercial Designation Cannot be Supported.
A. Notice of the proposed map change has not been properly given.
The proposed draft, October 2019 Future Land Use Map proposed by the City was not
properly published and circulated to affected property owners as required by applicable
law. Washington law is clear that county or city actions to change an amendment to a
comprehensive plan triggers the statutory mandate for public review and comment and
robust public participation. RCW 36.70A.035; also see, e.g. Spokane County v. E. Wash
Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 188 Wn. App, 467, 353 P3d. 680 (2015). While apparently on
the last Planning Commission meeting agenda for Thursday, March 19, 2020 as item VII
C (Urban Growth Area (MF# CPA 2020-001 )), our clients did not receive notice of the
change from a residential to a commercial designation in time to provide written
comments. While Big Sky Developers' engineering representative, Caleb Stromstad
attended the meeting, he noted that options for public comment were extremely limited.
There were only a few people in attendance. Comments were limited to two minutes and
City of Pasco
Community Development Department
Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez
City of Pasco Planning Commission
Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson
May 14, 2020
Page 3
the meeting occurred at the beginning of the social distancing requirements of the
pandemic, making public participation limited. At the meeting, Mr. Stromstad
recommended that the commercial designation be removed and was told that the
proposed UGA modifications (Alternative Number 3) was in draft from only and that
additional opportunities for public and property owner comment would be provided.
Our clients' position is that the March 19 Planning Commission meeting did not meet the
public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act and SEPA as applied to
any material modifications to the Future Lard Use Map. This iefter and the attachments
should be considered our clients' additional comments to be made part of the record
without in any way waiving or limiting their right to supplement the record with additional
written materials or in-person testimony at future Planning Commission meetings,
B. The City's proposed Commercial designation cannot be sugported.
As an initial matter, the property owner and developer (Big Sky) both strongly support the
City's inclusion of the Property within the City's new UGA. This is not in dispute. Our
clients simply believe that based on GMA goals, the as-built environment and practical
considerations, that an island of commercially-designated property is not needed and
cannot be supported along Burns Road in the southwest portion of the Property.
First, there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the City of Pasco's inventory of
commercially-designated and zoned property is inadequate. As a practical and legal
matter, commercially-designated and zoned property should be located in and along
established commercial corridors where commercial property and development already
exists, such as along Road 68 or Broadmoor Boulevard. Our clients believe that the
commercial designation proposed without notice to the owners or without any support on
the record, violates one or more of the State's GMA planning goals including but not
limited to the following;
(1) It fails to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. RCW
36.70A.020(1).
(2) It fails to encourage efficient transportation systems coordinated with
County and City Comprehensive Plans. RCW 36.70A.020 (3).
(3) It fails to promote the retention or expansion of existing businesses and
recruitment of new businesses, and fails to encourage such growth where public services
and facilities are available. RCW 36.70A.020 (5).
City of Pasco
Community Development Department
Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez
City of Pasco Planning Commission
Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson
May 14, 2020
Page 4
(4) It fails to protect the property rights of landowners from arbitrary and
discriminatory actions. RCW 36.70A.020 (6).
(5) It fails to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support the
commercial development will be adequate. RCW 36.70A.020 (12).
Simply stated, the proposed small island of commercially-designated property is an illegal
spot zone that violates the GMA goals set forth above.
The current as-built environment and practical considerations also make this site
completely unsuitable for commercial development in the next 20 years. There is a large
BPA power line on the west side of the Property which would be inconsistent with most
commercial development, and which is a BPA main trunk line that cannot be moved. The
80-acres immediately east of the Property recently has been sold to the Pasco School
District for a future high school site, which use would be inconsistent with any type of
more intensive commercial use. Last and most importantly, the entire area (north, south,
east and west) is designated Low Density Residential and already supports significant
low-density residential development. The owners and developers are aware of no City or
County property owner that supports a 30-acre island of commercial property in the
middle of a residential neighborhood.
Finally, Burns Road is not a commercial collector arterial and is inadequate to handle any
type of commercial traffic. Burns Road does not even have the needed right-of-way and
is not connected west, to Road 68. GMA mandates recognize that urban growth should
first occur in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing
public facilities and capacities to serve the development. RCW 36.70A.110(3).
Homeowners do not want the additional traffic from commercial development, and Burns
Road would be inadequate to handle any significant amounts of commercial traffic and is
not scheduled for improvement on the City's or County's 6-year road improvement plan.
If the City of Pasco believes it needs more commercially-designated and zoned land
within its UGA, this is not the place for it.
Based on the comments submitted to date, it appears the primary demand for Pasco's
UGA is for additional residential property to support its documented population growth.
All the City's proposed Commercial designation does in this instance is take 30 acres of
prime residential development property out of its urban growth area, where significant
residential development already is occurring. There is no evidence of a demand for
additional commercial property in this area and even if there was, as set forth above,
infrastructure won't support it. A simple review of the proposed Future Land Use Map
shows this small 30-acre Commercial designation to be in effect an illegal spot zone
City of Pasco
Community Development Department
Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez
City of Pasco Planning Commission
Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson
May 14, 2020
Page 5
inconsistent with the surrounding community. In north Pasco, commercially-designated
properties should remain around established commercial collector arterials such as
Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68 and should not be located in isolated residential
communities.
Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, the property owner and developer request that the City's
proposed Future i'_and Use Map be modified to remove the Commercial designation on
the Olberding property. Our office is confident that after proper public comment and
consideration of this letter and additional testimony that there will be no basis to include
a commercial designation on the Olberding property. To insist on such a designation
without legal support would be arbitrary and capricious conduct in violation of applicable
GMA planning goals.
Respectfully submitted,
Halverson Northwest Law Group P.C.
Mark E. Fickes
MEF/jk
5/13/2020 EXHIBIT A
fY P-
r
.. .�
114330045
f
A
114330048Wit
t
i2:" S ^ ` $ 11t o •''� aB' �?i�Ecry Cwc tl � •dr°�:� 7 else, tom' ' 1�
f 1 [( r
dal 6 KMI Q�
oma —�, ♦�a� J�f�
low'ai r; wi Mar f
Sada
aim
wo
:!&L._�V11�: "'.t-s•:; t..a�`
frenklinwa.mapsifter.cam/AefaultHTML5.aspx?parcel=114330045 1/1
EXHIBIT B
Future Land Use Map
�aind Use
Airport Resewe
commercla4 't t'
BrWdrr*or P�anning Arw
M—d Rew-fial C.rr—rd.l Coty Lirrils
DEMON CWNn
� �/SNL - .. •.`��
t
�' -4• � � - ,,, 4� N :�( ,yam
�`� •-';,,.e �a'Y��.. .• „nom- �tY ,4✓, �� > ��1 � � �r �tA1 ..k � � -.
_�-h' n C.�R � ttrj,' ice,-• ? • x -`s�'! - '
. \..'•.. �_ �. .rte
i♦
C,ityd
Pdko
Urban Growth Area
Urban Growth Areas
• RCW 36.70A.110
• Each county is required to designate an urban growth area(s)
within which urban growth shall be encouraged
• Based upon the growth management population projections
• Each UGA shall permit urban densities
• City utilities shall not be extended/expanded outside of UGA
•Growth Management Act (GMA)
• RCW 36.70A
• Adopted in 1990
• Requires cities to develop comprehensive plans
managing population growth
Ci fA7(,r
UrbanArea
Rapid Population Growth
140000
• Pasco's population has increased 130% 120000
(2000 — 2018)
100000
• WA State Office of Financial Mgmta: 80000
Pasco will be home to 121,,828 in year 2038 —
60000
+15k new housing units needed by 2038 40000 = (55 increase
20000 =
0 - --
2000 2010 2018 2028 2038
cO Urban rowt rea
Timeline
• June 2018
• Resolution 3845
• Proposed Expansion > 4,800 Acres
• October- November 2018
• Scoped Environmental Impact Statement Issued
• 3 Alternative UGAs
• Alternative #1: No Action
• Alternative #2: Traditional Growth Target
• Alternative #3: Compact Growth Target
• December 2019 - March 2020
• Land Capacity Analysis
• Capital Facilities Plan for the Urban Growth Area
• Comprehensive Plan & Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cityor
Urban Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals
(RCW 36.70A.020)
GINIA Goal Alt #1 (No Action) Alt #2 (Traditional) Alt #3 (Compact)
Least amount of future
growth in the City; Focused growth within the Focused growth within the
Urban Growth Dispersed (low-density) UGA; low-density UGA at higher densities
future growth throughout
UGA
Low density and dispersed Growth within the UGA
development would need Growth within the UGA; and compact planned
Reduce Sprawl to exceed UGA to low-density suburban
accommodate growth; pattern will result in sprawl areas of compatible land-
increased sprawl
uses would reduce sprawl
r'-
Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals
(RCW 36.70A.020)
-GWYA-Zoal Alt #1 (No Action) Alt #2 (Traditional) Alt #3 (Compact)1
Transportation
Retains current Transportation improvements necessary;
Transportation transportation system improvements necessary added multi-modal
w/limited improvements to support urban growth opportunities; increased
connectivity
Housing not adequate to Housing demands met with
meet population demands Housing demands met with
Housing increased variety and
due to dispersed and low- limited housing types
density of housing types
density development
- Cityof
Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals
(RCW 36.70A.020)
oal Alt #1 (No Action) Alt #2 (Traditional) Alt #3 (Compact)i
Current economic Economic opportunities
development trend Economic opportunities identified, additional
identified; limited to
Economic Development
continue; limited to existing commercial, mixed-use and
existing industrial areas can
commercial/industrial commercial/industrial accommodate future
areas areas growth/employment
Maintains existing parks Maintains existing parks
Open Space & Recreation Maintains existing facilities and natural open space; and natural open space;
additional park land additional park land
identified to serve growth identified to serve growth
Ci ty of
Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals
(RCW 36.70A.020)
a I Alt #1 (No Action) Alt #2 (Traditional) Alt #3 (Compact)
Current regulations will Current regulations will Current regulations will
protect existing
protect existing protect existing
environment; low-density environment; low-density environment; Higher
Environment development increases
development increases density development
sprawl into higher vehicle sprawl into higher vehicle pattern decreases land
congestion w/impacts to air
congestion impacting air consumption; mix of land
quality quality uses may decrease impact
to air quality
Additional public facilities
Public facilities will continue Additional public facilities will be required to support
Public Facilities & Service to serve current will be required to support urban development;
development patterns urban development efficient use of facilities due
to compact development
Pd�co-
Urban Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan DEIS: Summary of Alternatives + Growth Management Act Goals
(RCW 36.70A.020)
-T Alt #3 (Compact)
GiviA 6oal Alt #1 (No Action) Alt #2 (Traditional)
Historical or Historical or
Historical or
archaeologically significant archaeologically significant archaeologically significant
sites or structures are sites or structures are
Historic Preservation sites/structures are protected in the planning protected in the planning
protected under the current phase, and also under the phase, and also under the
regulations during
construction phase. current regulations during current regulations during
construction phase. construction phase.
*Complete summaries are described within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement*
C1ty(if
ry
P �cv
Urban Growth Area
Schedule for Completion
Date Item
June 15, 2020 End of Public Comment Period for Draft EIS (DEIS issued on 5/15)
June 18, 2020 UGA + Comprehensive Plan Update & Presentation @ Pasco Planning Commission
June 22, 2020 UGA + Comprehensive Plan Update & Presentation @ Pasco City Council (Resolution)
July 16, 2020 Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan @ Pasco Planning Commission
August 6, 2020 Comprehensive Plan (Special Meeting) @ Pasco Planning Commission (August 2o, 2020 if
necessary)
September 7 & 21, 2020 Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan @ Pasco City Council
September 28, 2020 Comprehensive Plan Presentation @ Pasco City Council (Adoption)
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, May 21, 2020
6:00 PM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MF# CA 2019-007 Waterfront District
Background
The Port of Pasco requested an amendment to the Pasco Municipal (Zoning) Code for the
creation of a new zoning district titled "Waterfront District." PMC 25.210.020 states that any
person, firm, corporation or group of individuals, or municipal department may petition the
Pasco City Council for a zone or tent change.
The Port of Pasco owns, operations and manages major facilities in the greater Pasco area
including the Tri-Cities Airport, Big Pasco (Industrial Center),the Pasco Processing Center and has
led and participated in various programming and planning for economic development in our
region.
The proposed amendment would encompass approximately 52 acres of property owned by the
Port of Pasco, north of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail and bound by E Ainsworth to the North, S
Gray Street to the West and SE Road 20 to the East. The primary use of the existing property is
Osprey Pointe, a business and office center home to the Port of Pasco offices.
Although the properties included are currently zoned industrial, the upcoming City
Comprehensive Plan has re-classified the area for Mixed Residential/Commercial land use. The
Port of Pasco and the City of Paso have identified the Osprey Pointe area as a significant
opportunity to provide residents with a unique experience providing additional access to the
waterfront.
Proposed Code Amendment Considerations
The proposed Waterfront District Zoning code would be permitted under the Mixed
Residential/Commercial Land Use per the upcoming Comprehensive Plan. The Waterfront
District Zone itself will be permitted on the Port of Pasco / Osprey Point owned site.
The code contains several departures from current zoning requirements that will more easily
encourage and permit mixed-use development opportunities identified for the Osprey Point
vision. The primary change in zoning is the allowance of residential uses for Osprey Pointe. The
combination of residential, commercial, office with light industrial provides the Port of Pasco
with an opportunity to maximize development potential in Osprey Pointe.
Additional considerations and discussion for the Planning Commission should include the
following items (excerpts from the proposed code amendment):
Permitted Uses/Prohibited Uses
Flexible range of permitted uses reflects the necessary diversity of development required to
encourage and reinforce the Osprey Pointe and Waterfront vision and purpose that would
include offices, restaurants, retail, hospitality and entertainment uses. Residential uses would
be allowed on the western edges of the property.
Conditional uses shall be considered for the following: retail/wholesale (exceeding 80,000 sqft),
service stations and drive-through uses. Prohibited uses would cover those that are high impact
and could not be made compatible with the development including (but not limited to) heavy
industrial and manufacturing uses.
Density/Height
A minimum density of 14 units per acre would be required for residential portions of the
Waterfront District, and a height limit of 60 feet would be in place thus limiting the maximum
density of any residential development.
The Comprehensive Plan permits the Mixed Residential/Commercial Land Use to include a
range of 5-29 dwelling units per acre, thus permitting the proposed densities proposed in the
draft amendment.
Setbacks
Development standards for setbacks in the proposed code would allow commercial and
residential uses with higher intensities to be placed closer the street while lower intensity uses
(single-family dwelling units)would be separated from the street and other units.
Parking
In an effort to promote a safe and walkable environment, the proposed code decreases the
required parking than what is required by the existing Pasco Municipal Code. The Waterfront
District includes a series of features and tools to ensure that adequate parking is provided and
used efficiently without overburdening properties.
Streets (Private)
The code amendments proposes the use and permitting of both public and private streets. The
City does not currently have standards for private streets, and only permits the use of private
streets through the Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PMC 25.140).
City staff believes that streets serving the Waterfront District shall include considerations for
the safe movement of all users, residents and customers and should include accommodations
for safe pedestrian access, bicycle travel and automobile traffic. As identified in the attached
submittal from the Port of Pasco and AHBL (Appendix B), the allowable use of private streets
that perform and create active places will further implement the vision identified for Osprey
Point.
2
State Environmental Policy Act
A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on March 23, 2020. The DNS for
the non-project action was made per WAC 197-11-340(2). The SEPA received one comment
letter, from the Washington State Department of Transportation (Appendix Q.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the Public Hearing on the proposed code amendment for the
creation of a Waterfront District and set June 18, 2020 as the date for deliberations and
recommendation for City Council.
3
Item: Rezone N
Applicant: Port of Pasco W+E
File #: CA2019-007 e Waterfront Development DistrictLU
s
a^ z
& �te' - ei� �"t;� 'c H _��, 54 �t-`��d c ttr�'r �, _ .�Na •jam i_ �� �� �R ..
•"t W
EC Sr
L
CO
z
GO, OSPR
EYPOltVfSSLVp
T
ry \
- }^ G0Sj
Osprey Pointe
0 1,100
Feet
Chapter 25.�X Waterfront Development (WD) District
Sections:
25.'> '-:.010 Purpose.
25.',,-:,..015 Terms defined.
25.:, ?- .020 Permitted uses.
25.:x:`, .030 Permitted accessory uses.
25.:r' -,.040 Conditional uses.
25.,,',,,',,,.050 Prohibited uses.
25.", > .060 Unlisted uses.
25. � -- .070 Development standards.
25.:.'..010 PURPOSE.
The purpose of the waterfront development (WD) district is to allow the location of a
compatible mix of commercial, residential, light industrial, and recreational uses on
parcels situated close to the Columbia River waterfront and within the Osprey Pointe
property, historically owned by the Port of Pasco.
25X'�,.015 TERMS DEFINED.
"Artisan manufacturing" means small-scale businesses that manufacture artisan goods
or specialty foods. Small manufacturing production primarily focuses on direct sales
rather than the wholesale market.
25..';X.020 PERMITTED USES.
The following uses shall be permitted in the waterfront development district:
(1) Commercial, office, educational, and government uses:
(a) All uses permitted in the "O" Office district;
(b) Artisan manufacturing, provided that such uses are intended to be
compatible with surrounding commercial, industrial, and residential
development and shall adhere to the following requirements:
(i) Structures shall not encompass more than 10,000 square feet of
area, and the 10,000 square foot total shall include all indoor
storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation.
(ii) Outdoor storage is prohibited.
(iii) Loading docks. Where the site abuts a residential use, the building
wall facing such lot shall not have any service door openings or
loading docks oriented toward the residential use.
(iv) Public viewing. Artisan manufacturing uses must accommodate
public viewing or a customer service space. Public viewing shall be
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 1
accomplished with windows or glass doors covering at least 25
percent of the front of the building face abutting the street or indoor
lobby wall, allowing direct views of manufacturing. The display area
may be reduced below 25 percent where fire-rated separation
requirements restrict opening size as determined by the building
official. A customer service space including a showroom, tasting
room, restaurant or retail space may be provided that substitutes
for the exterior public viewing area.
(v) All uses shall not emit smoke, gas, odor, dust, sound, vibration,
soot, heat, glare, or light that is detectable beyond the property line.
(c) Banks and financial institutions;
(d) Breweries, wineries, and distilleries;
(e) Churches and similar places of worship;
(f) Dancing schools;
(g) Gyms and fitness centers;
(h) Hotels and motels;
(i) Laundries/dry cleaners;
0) Portable food vending/food trucks;
(k) Printing shops;
(1) Public or commercial parking garages;
(m) Public markets for fresh produce and craft work;
(n) Restaurants and eating establishments, including food halls with shared
common areas;
(o) Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business and similar services in
buildings not exceeding 80,000 gross square feet such as:
(i) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises;
(ii) Barber and beauty shops;
(iii) Bookstores, except adult bookstores;
(iv) Catering establishments;
(v) Artist and office supplies;
(vi) Florists;
(vii) Specialty retail stores;
(viii) Museums and art galleries;
(ix) Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals (new/unused
materials only);
(x) Crafts, stationery, and gift shops;
(xi) Department and drug stores;
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 2
(xii) Grocery or specialty food stores;
(xiii) Furniture and home appliance stores;
(xiv) Import shops;
(xv) Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work;
(xvi) Shoe repair shops;
(xvii) Sporting goods stores;
(xviii) Tailor and seamstress shops;
(xix) Upholstery shops;
(p) Locksmith shops;
(q) Membership clubs;
(r) Theaters (movie or live theater);
(s) Veterinary clinics serving household pets (no boarding or outdoor treatment
facilities); and
(t) Universities, colleges, and business, professional, technical, and trade
schools.
(2) Industrial and business park uses as follows, provided they are located east of
South Oregon Avenue or its extension:
(a) Creameries;
(b) Research laboratories and facilities,
(c) Wholesale facilities and operations; and
(d) Warehousing and distribution facilities.
(3) Residential uses:
(a) Single-family detached dwellings may be located west of the alignmentof
South Maitland Avenue at densities prescribed under PMC 25.", % .070;
(b) Attached single-family dwellings (duplexes and townhouses) may be located
east of the extension of South Maitland Avenue, but no further than 500 feet
east of the alignment of South Oregon Avenue at densities prescribed under
PMC 25_%`•..070; and
(c) Multifamily dwellings may be located no further than 500 feet east of the
alignment of South Oregon Avenue.
(d) Short-term vacation rental uses and Bed and Breakfasts may be located
where residential uses are allowed.
(4) Recreational and entertainment uses:
(a) Indoor and outdoor event and entertainment uses and facilities (commercial
or public), not to exceed one acre;
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 3
(b) Marinas and marine repair facilities;
(c) Mixed-use buildings containing any combination of residential, commercial,
office, educational, and government facilities in a single building; and
(d) Public and private parks and trails.
25. .030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES.
(1) Accessory dwelling units when associated with a permitted residential use;
(2) Family home child care in conformance with WAC 170-296A-0010;
(3) Sheds not exceeding 200 square feet provided they are located in the rear yard of
residential uses or a place of business;
(4) Outdoor storage of goods and materials for an industrial or business park use
located east of South Oregon Avenue or its extension;
(5) Private parking lots and garages meeting the development standards of this
chapter;
(6) Storage facilities accessory to multifamily dwellings for the sole use of residents;
(7) Home occupations in accordance with PMC 25.150; and
(8) Alcoholic beverage sales, provided it is for on-site consumption and located within a
restaurant; and
(9) Private streets, meeting the standards of PMC 25.XX.070(14).
25. -\.040 CONDITIONAL USES
The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of special permit as provided in
Chapter 25.200 PMC:
(1) Retail, wholesale, and department stores and shops exceeding a gross floor
area of 80,000 square feet;
(2) Landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, provided
that plants and materials are located behind a building and are not visiblefrom
the public right-of-way or residential uses;
(3) Nursing homes and assisted living facilities;
(4) Marine gas sales;
(5) Gasoline and service stations;
(6) Drive-thru uses; and
(7) Indoor and outdoor event and entertainment uses and facilities (commercial or
public), exceeding one acre.
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 4
25.XX.050 PROHIBITED USES.
The following uses are prohibited in the WD district:
(1) All uses permitted conditionally in the 1-2 Medium Industrial district;
(2) Automobile assembly, services, or repair;
(3) Vehicle rental;
(4) Tire stores;
(5) Car washes;
(6) Automobile detail shops;
(7) Automobile sales;
(8) Auto body shops;
(9) Mini-storage facilities;
(10) Pawn shops;
(11) Card rooms and bingo parlors;
(12) Secondhand dealers— similar or like uses although not specifically listed are also
prohibited;
(13) Adult bookstores or entertainment facilities;
(14) Truck stops — diesel fuel sales;
(15) Truck terminals;
(16) Heavy machinery sales and service;
(17) Contractor's plant or storage yards;
(18) Mobile home and trailer sales and service;
(19) Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment facilities;
(20) Pharmaceutical laboratories;
(21) Industrial medical facilities;
(22) Any outdoor manufacturing, testing, processing, or similar activity;
(23) On-site hazardous substance processing and handling or hazardouswaste
treatment and storage facilities;
(24) Kennels and animal boarding facilities;
(25) The manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging of cosmetics,
pharmacology, and the reducing and refining of fats and oils;
(26) Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards, scrap iron, scrap paper, or rag storage,
sorting, or baling;
(27) Cemeteries; and
(28) Recreational vehicle parks.
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 5
25.. ' ..060 UNLISTED USES.
All unlisted uses shall be classified as conditional uses and require a special use
permit under PMC 25.200.
25.'-.'\.070 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(1) All structures, uses, and shoreline modifications shall comply with the City of Pasco
Shoreline Master Program (PMC 29.15), where applicable.
(2) Minimum density:
(a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none.
(b) Industrial and business park uses: none.
(c) Residential uses: 14 units/net acre average for residential portions of the
WD district (net acre excludes infrastructure (roads, utility easements,
stormwater infrastructure) and critical areas, and applies to the entire WD
district rather than to individual developments). Additionally, residential
uses shall not comprise more than 50 percent of the gross land areawithin
the WD district.
(3) Minimum lot area:
(a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none.
(b) Industrial and business park uses: none.
(c) Residential uses: 4,500 square feet (single family detached), 1,500 square
feet per unit (duplex and single-family attached). There is no minimum lot
area for multifamily dwellings.
(4) Minimum lot width:
(a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none.
(b) Industrial and business park uses: none.
(c) Residential uses: 40 feet (single family detached), 20 feet per unit (duplex
and single-family attached). There is no minimum lot width for multifamily
dwellings.
(5) Lot coverage: Dictated by parking requirements, setbacks and landscaping;
(6) Minimum Yard Setbacks - Front.
(a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none.
(b) Industrial and business park uses: As required by PMC 25.110 for business
park uses and by 25.180 and 25.185 for industrial uses..
(c) Residential uses: 10 feet (single family detached and attached, and
duplexes), 20 feet (garden-style apartments/ condominiums), none for
multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed-use buildings.
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 6
(7) Minimum Yard Setbacks — Interior side yard.
(a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none.
(b) Industrial and business park uses: As required by PMC 25.110 for business
park uses and by 25.180 and 25.185 for industrial uses.
(c) Residential uses: 5 feet (single family detached and attached, and
duplexes), 15 feet from other buildings (garden-style apartments/
condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in
mixed-use buildings.
(8) Minimum Yard Setbacks — Street side yard and rear.
(a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none.
(b) Industrial and business park uses: As required by PMC 25.110 for business
park uses Und by 25.180 and 25.185 for industrial uses.
(c) Residential uses: 10 feet (single family detached and attached, and
duplexes), 20 feet from other buildings (garden-style apartments/
condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in
mixed-use buildings.
(9) Maximum building height:
(a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: 60 feet
(b) Industrial and business park uses: 45 feet.
(c) Residential uses: 35 feet (single family detached and duplexes), 40 feet
(single-family attached and garden-style apartments/ condominiums), 60
feet (multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed-use buildings).
(10) Fences and hedges:
(a) Fences and walls shall meet the requirements of PMC 25.180, with the
following exceptions:
(i) Fences and walls shall be constructed using a combination of
natural materials such as wood, stone, or brick including those on
industrially used properties.
(ii) Barbed wire and electrified fencing are prohibited on all properties;
(11) Parking:
(a) All new uses in the WD district must provide parking in accordance with
Table 25A>�? M. The Community and Economic Development Director
may approve ratios lower than the minimum if the new use provides
bicycle parking. See subsection (d) of this section pertaining to parking
reductions. The Community and Economic Development Director shall
determine parking requirements for unlisted uses. Uses which are not
listed in the table shall have parking requirements of the nearest
analogous use which is included in the table, as determined by the
Community and Economic Development Director.
(b) On-street parking or off-street public parking lots may be used in
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 7
combination with dedicated off-street parking to accommodate parking
demand from individual developments.
(c) On-street and off-street public parking may be time-limited, metered, or
otherwise restricted in order to ensure that parking demand from individual
developments does not adversely impact parking availability for the district
as a whole and may be managed by either the Port or City (depending on
public or private ownership). No more than 30 percent of the minimum
parking requirement for an individual use may be on-street spaces or off-
street public spaces and must be located within 500 feet of the proposed
use.
(d) Bicycle parking reduction. For every five bicycle parking spaces provided,
the number of vehicle parking spaces may be reduced by one up to
maximum of 10 percent of the minimum number of spaces otherwise
required.
Table 25. 'kq1): Number of Minimum Required and Maximum Allowed Parking
Spaces by Use in the WD District
Use Category Minimum Maximum
COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENT
USES
(per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified)
Churches, places of worship, clubs, 1 per 100 square 1 per 60 square
fraternal societies feet main feet of main
assembly area assembly area
Commercial lodging (hotel, motel, bed 0.5 per room 1 per room
and breakfast, short-term vacation
rentals)
Educational Uses
Elementary schools 1 per classroom 1.5 per classroom
and 1 per
employee
Middle schools 1 per classroom 2 per classroom
High school 7 per classroom 10.5 per classroom
Universities, colleges, 0.3 per full-time 0.5 per FTE
business, professional, student and 0.8 per student and 0.8
technical and trade schools employee perem loyee
Gyms or fitness centers 3 5
Museums and art galleries 2.5 4
Offices: Administrative, 2 4
Professional, Government
Portable food vendors/food trucks None required None required
Restaurants/bars/ breweries, wineries, 0.5 per 3 seats 1.0 per 3 seats
and distilleries
Retail sales and services 3 5
Wholesale sales 3 5
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 8
INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK USES
(per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified)
Industrial services 2 5 per 1,000 square
feet of GFA of
office space; 2 per
1,500 square feet
of GFA of assembly
space and 0.5 per
1,000 square feet
of GFA of
warehouses ace
Manufacturing 1.25 2.0
Warehousing and distribution facilities 0.25 0.5
RESIDENTIAL USES
(per unit unless otherwise specified)
Single-family detached 1 2
Accessory dwelling units J 0.5 1
Single-family attached and two-family 1 2
dwellings
Multifamily dwellings 0.75 1.5
Nursing homes and assisted living facilities 0.25 per bed 0.5 per bed
RECREATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USES
(per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified)
Public and private parks and trails To be determined during land
use approval process
Event entertainment (indoor or outdoor) 1 per 8 seats 1 per 5 seats
Theaters 1 per 4 seats 1 per 2.7 seats
INSTITUTIONAL USES
(per 1,000 square feet of net floor area unless otherwise specified)
Hospitals 1 1 per bed 1.5 per bed
Police and fire stations 12 4
(12) Landscaping:
(a) Surface parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with PMC
25.180.070.
(b) Single-family detached and attached residences and duplexes shall be
landscaped in accordance with PMC 25.180.050(4).
(c) Single-use commercial and industrially used property shall be screened in
accordance with 25.180.050(3). Commercially-used property in multistory
and/or mixed-use buildings are exempt from landscaping requirements.
(13) Transportation
(a) The internal transportation network of the Waterfront District shall be
designed to maximum multi-modal travel options. All transportation
infrastructure shall meet the intent of the City Complete Streets
Ordinance (PMC 12.15) and comply with the International Fire Code.
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 9
(14) Design Standards (Transportation)
(a) Speed Limits: 20 MPH
(b) Sidewalk Widths:
• Residential: Minimum 6'
• Commercial/Mixed Use: Minimum: 10'
(c) Local Access Streets:
• Driving Lane Minimum width: 11'
• Parking Lane Minimum width: 8'
• Dedicated Bicycle Lane: minimum width: 5'
(d) Alleys:
• Minimum: 20' width
(e) Private Street/Lane:
(i) Private street improvements shall meet the standards for Local
Access Roads, at a minimum, with the exception being that sidewalk
must be present on at least one side and on-street parking must be
present on one side. This will result in a roadway section, with curb
and gutter, that measures 31' back-to-back of curb.
(ii) Private streets must not interfere with vehicle, public transportation or
non-motorized access to public areas, and may not preclude the
connection of the transportation system.
(iii) Storm water facilities must be able to treat and retain all storm water
on-site without any runoff enter City of Pasco right- of-way.
(iv) Every private street within the district shall be named and names
shall be clearly posted.
PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 10
ON
-
0 =
May 12, 2020
Pasco Planning Commisison
c/o Jacob Gonzalez, City of Pasco
Street 525 N 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
QVI;i-nolwrei,
Project: Port of Pasco Waterfront District, AHBL No. 2200022.30 Sirurturaf Enaoflees•
Subject: Private Street Request
Landscape Archller.)L
Dear Pasco Planning Commission Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide more information regarding the Port of Pasco's
request to include private streets within the proposed Waterfront District (District) at Osprey
Pointe. At the core of this proposal the intent to create a vibrant waterfront community space, LancSurveyoa.ti
achieving the vision shared by the population of the City of Pasco and the Tri-Cities as a
whole. This shared vision includes a walkable, high-density, mixed-use development with a
focus on quality design. Neighbors
The Port is requesting that the district be established such that there can be a network of public
and private streets. The purpose is to achieve the vision of Osprey Pointe as a prominent and
loved place for special events, community gatherings, street festivals and the like.
The use of private spaces (including streets)for public purposes is a common practice. In
Seattle, privately owned public spaces are referred to as "POPS" and are mapped online by
the City so citizens can use and enjoy each space'. The streets within the Waterfront District
would act in a similar way, and while they would be technically "privately owned' by the Port or
another owner, they would remain public spaces - designed and activated in a way to be used
by the public. Considering streets as places' rather than just thorough-fares is a large-scale
movement'.
Different techniques used to create a strong identity and sense of place in downtown areas and
unique districts across the country and in our own State of Washington. We would like to see
the Port be able to create a unique place through a unique set of standards that would
incorporate distinctive themes and elements. Our"toolbox"to achieve this could include
various types of pavers, thematic lighting,landscaping, public art, ornamental gateway arches,
and pedestrian amenities. Many times, these types of features can be viewed as problematic
from the perspective of a city's public works department as they can require additional
maintenance; for the Port, the benefit of such features would be factored into the Port's
investments and ongoing maintenance scheme and budgets.
https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/resources/privately-owned-public-spaces
https;Hwww.pps.org/article/streets-as-places https://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-protect-types/
3 https://www.pps.org/article/humanize-street-design-for-road-safety
7ti
www.abb!com
Pasco Planning Commisison _I'/=
May 12,2020
2200022.30
Page 2
rA li
The Port desires flexibility outside City design standards in order to be able to implement these
placemaking ideas and concepts. Flexibility allows the Port to design streets that fit the context,
take into consideration district goals, consider multi-modal circulation options, include
pedestrian safety features, and have roadway narrowing —all of which are common strategies
in transportation manuals across the U.S.' These strategies can be used to improve and
enhance the streetscape and public experience without compromising on safety and
connectivity with the City's overall street network. The Chicago DOT created an initiative that
highlights the idea of opening streets up to people to create public spaces which can help
improve safety, promote walkability and support economic development'.
Having private streets would allow the Port to manage closures to accommodate events such
as art walks, music, street fairs or other forms of entertainment. While private, these streets
would still have standards to ensure adequate vehicular and emergency access and a safe
environment for all users. Other standards such as narrow travel-ways, on-street parking, wide
sidewalks, and landscaping would encourage visitors and residents of the District to park once
and walk.
While the streets owned and managed by the Port or a similar entity would be called private
streets, we emphasize that they would not be like those seen in subdivisions owned by
homeowners'associations. To the contrary, they will be still in the public domain. For
example, they could be owned, controlled and maintained by the Port or in a public/private
partnership. The Port, a public entity, is well positioned to do so as it is an economically
sustainable entity with taxing authority and the ability to manage public property in a
responsible and effective manner. As you are aware, the Port is responsible for managing
many industrial and critical transportation sites such as the Tri-Cities Airport, the Big Pasco
Industrial Center, and the Port of Pasco Container Terminal. In these areas, the Port already
owns and maintains approximately five miles of private streets. The Port has the leadership,
expertise, and assets to properly steward private streets and similar amenities. Alternatively, a
private developer or entity such as a development authority could responsibly manage such
assets.
On a final note—only those secondary roads in the transportation network would be
established as private streets. It is not the Port's intent to take over the function of the city in
assuring that there is a complete network which provides the necessary circulation and mobility
throughout Osprey Pointe, which any primary roads would do.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with the City staff, the
Planning Commission, and City Council on developing the Waterfront District to benefit the
community.
Sincerely,
Nicole Stickney, AICP JJ
Planning Project Manager, AHBL
cc: Gary Ballew CEcD, Port of Pasco
htti)s://www.planetizen.com/node/40394
'https://www.pps.ora/article/actions-streets-places-government-makes-happen
MM183 3
Washington State South Central Region
oad
Departmet of Transportation
2809p W 8903-1648
509-577-1600/FAX 509-577-1603
APPENDIX C TTY. 1-800-833-6388
www.wsdot.wa gov
April 27, 2020
City of Pasco
Community Development Department
525 N. Yd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Attention: Darcy Bourcier, Planner
Subject: Establish New Waterfront Development District, CA2019-007 R. SEPA2020-021
SR 397/Ainsworth Street/Oregon Avenue Intersection, MP 19.87
We have reviewed the proposed establishment of a new Waterfront Development District
zone and have the following comments.
1. WSDOT supports the proposed code change to add Waterfront Development District
zoning. The proposed mixed land uses of commercial, residential, light industrial, and
recreation create opportunities f'or internal traffic trips and the use of active
transportation modes reducing trips on SR 397.
2. This SEPA also amends the city's comprehensive plan to add this new zoning to a
specific location. The proposed zoning amendment location is adjacent to State
Highway 397. SR 397 is a Class 5 Access Managed highway within the corporate
limits of the City of Pasco with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour.
3. The SR 397/Ainsworth Street/Oregon Avenue intersection will serve as a major
entrance to the site.The new Waterfront Development District zone will generate
more traffic than the existing industrial zoning and development will need to mitigate
for this increased traffic impact. As developments are proposed they will be subject to
review for their impacts to the WSDOT system.
SR 397 currently functions within acceptable safety and operational standards. This
development, along with potentially other developments, will be significant factors in
the need for improvements to SR 397 including the intersection. It is to the benefit of
the City, the State, and future developers to preserve the functionality of SR 397.
Impacts that are determined to be significant will require mitigation, and it is
anticipated that all costs will be borne by the development(s). Of particular concern to
the department are the effects developments have on the multimodal capacity, their
proposed ingress and egress, retention and treatment of stormwater, outdoor lighting,
noise sensitivity, and signage. This information is normally obtained through a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) performed by the developer.
C:\Users\gonsetp\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\UTAFNG8F\Pasco_Waterfront
Development District Zone_Ltr.docx
City of Pasco Community Development Department
Establish New Waterfront Development District
Page 2
Paul Gonseth,P.E.
Planning Engineer
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
city-' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
I` Pasco City Hall —525 North Third Avenue —Council Chambers
1q11!
I DATE: THURSDAY, May 21, 2020
6:00 PM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MF # CA2019-013 —Street Connectivity
Background
This is an updated report to the Planning Commission on the ongoing staff effort to address
transportation accessibility, connectivity and mobility opportunities for the residents and
businesses of Pasco. To date, the Planning Commission has held two workshops (December
2019 and March 2020) on this item; however this topic has been identified through prior
studies, adopted plans and Pasco City Council through the following:
• 2008 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan
o Goal TR-1: Provide for and maintain an effective transportation system centered
on a convenient and integrated street network;
o Goal TR-2: Encourage efficient, alternate and muti-modal transportation systems
• 2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
o Policy on Connectivity and Access: Bicyclists should have safe access to City
destinations accessible by motor vehicles, where practical
o Policy on Incentives and Promotion: Encourage non-motorized travel
• 2018 City of Pasco Complete Streets Ordinance
o Adopted in July 2018, PMC 12.15 states "to the maximum extent practical,
consider all users of the right-of-way, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists,
emergency responders,freight carriers, and all public transportation users in
planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of all of the City's
transportation improvement projects."
• 2018-2019 Pasco City Council Goals
o Promote a highly-functional multi-modal transportation network through:
■ Undertaking a comprehensive and inclusive transportation planning and
analysis process to include facilitation of traffic flow in major corridors,
support integration of pedestrian, bicycle and other non-vehicular means
of transportation.
In addition to the above items, Pasco's Department of Community and Economic Development
(C&ED) and Public Works staff have been involved with major updates to the City
Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP). The Comprehensive
I
Plan (scheduled for a fall 2020 adoption) now includes the following references to mobility and
street connectivity:
• Policy: Provide for and maintain a safe, integrated and effective transportation
system that promotes connectivity
• Policy: Provide increased neighborhood travel connections for public safety as
well as providing for transportation disbursement.
• Policy: Develop on interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public
ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity.
• Policy: Require developments to meet the intent of the Pasco Complete Street
Ordinance.
The Transportation System Master has identified a lack of mobility standards as a key issue for
Pasco. The TSMP is expected to be completed in early 2021. The Street Connectivity Code
Amendment is the implementation of past, current and future planning and infrastructure goals
identified by the City of Pasco.
Objective
The objective of this effort is revise the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC 21.15, PMC 21.20)to meet
adopted Council goals, policies and to meet the needs of our community and future growth.
The code amendments will address the following:
• Block Perimeters
• Block Length/Width
• Mid-Block Connections
• Connection to adjacent properties
Recent subdivision designs have decreased and discouraged multi-modal travel opportunities
due to longer block lengths, disconnected street patterns and the frequent use of dead-
end/cul-de-sacs. Travel options are further limited due to the lack of subdivision (residential)
locations within proximity to commercial areas.
A benefit of improved street connectivity is that it is better equipped to redistribute vehicle
travel across the street network, increasing the overall efficiency of the transportation system.
Interconnected streets can ease traffic flow problems because they provide alternative routes,
which help decrease the demand of any single street or intersection.
Increased connectivity also promotes alternative transportation choices for residents of Pasco.
A well-connected network emphasizes various types of mobility: pedestrian, automobile and
transit. It is a system of varied routes and cross connections, few closed end streets, many
points of access, with plenty of sidewalks for pedestrian access. This helps the City with meeting
2
multi-modal transportation goals established by the Washington State Department of
Transportation', Benton-Franklin Council of Governments2 and Ben Franklin Transit3.
An often overlooked relationship of street connectivity is the benefit to our emergency
responders. Our local Fire, Police and First Aid responders benefit when there are more direct
routes and access to the location of an incident. A 2013 study', documenting best practices for
emergency access indicated that shorter blocks and connected streets permit quicker fire
responses for emergencies. A United States National Highway Administration study in 2006
found that average response times were greater in less dense (connected) areas compared to
more urban areas.
Existing Code
Title 21 "Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations" provides standard practices for the division
of land. Section 21.15 "Streets" contains information on street layouts and types whereas
Section 21.20 "Lots and Blocks" defines characteristics such as the length, width and dimension.
The combination of these sections is responsible for much of the way our city has developed.
Through the development of the Transportation System Master Plan process, the following was
identified from our existing code language:
Table 1: PMC Analysis5
Pasco Municipal Code Comments
21.15.010—Street Layout The PMC already includes requirements to connect to existing
adjacent streets and developable properties, Stronger(added
emphases)should be included.
21.15.070—Cul(s)-de-Sac PMC language is intended to limit cul-de-sacs, but the language
is broad and lacks emphasis.
21.15.100 —Pedestrian Ways PMC language lacks specific guidance for implementation.
21.20.010— Block Length Existing maximum of 1,320 exceeds typical standards for
communities (by almost 2x), PMC should include additional
guidance and standards to meet intent. Addition of block
perimeter standard
21.20.020—Block Width Existing PMC is sufficient
Washington Transportation Plan, Phase 2— Implementation 2017-2040
2 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments - Transition2040
3 Ben Franklin Transit—Transit Development Plan 2019
a Best Practices—L-meri,ency Access in Healthy Streets-2013
5 City of Pasco Transportation System Master Plan(Draft);DKS,Angelo Planning Group
3
Figure 1 (below) displays the average distance (ft.) for blocks in 17 Washington cities. These
cities are diverse in population, urban form, and age but provide a general idea of where
Pasco's block formation fits in. Of these cities, Pasco has the third largest block perimeter
(5,443 ft.) with an average block perimeter exceeding one mile.
Figure 1: Block Perimeter Comparison
Average Block Perimeter (ft)
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
P, P� P, aoe
`1 \Q1 `� Q `� �� `� �� `� �� \Z eta
a\\1b
a a`ree o�ace �� a a \�e \�Qora� coJ,ec � Ja�\ea
Q �e
Figure 2 (page 5) displays a comparison of the maximum block lengths for nine Washington
cities. Pasco's maximum block length of 1,320 ranked second longest and was significantly
longer than other cities including the City of Kennewick (900 ft.).
Figure 3 (page 5) looks at 17 Washington cities (same as Figure 1) and compares the Annual
Cost of Transportation per household.Transportation costs represent the average total cost of
household transportation which is derived from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Of the
17 cities, Pasco has the third highest average cost ($14,528) behind West Richland and
Marysville. It should be noted that cities with lower transportation costs such as Vancouver,
Spokane, Ellensburg and Walla Walla (average cost of$11,530) have an average maximum
block length of 605 feet and block perimeter of 3,950 feet; both of those figures significantly
higher than Pasco (660 ft; 5443 ft).Additional analysis would be necessary to deduce a
confirmation of correlation.
4
Figure 2: Maximum Block Length
Maximum Block Length (ft)
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
now-
200
i
0
Pasco(WA) Kennewick Richland Spokane Bellingham Ellensburg Olympia Yakima Walla Walla
(WA) (WA) (WA) (WA) (WA) (WA) (WA) (WA)
Figure 3: Annual Transportation Costs per Household
Annual Transportation Costs per Household
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
o a a \a a e e a �a ��e
Qay` \` ��\raoa\\�a� ,a�\Fe�a�re hQo�a� �,e�2 Ca�occ o\ Q ac ,\e\\\"Z'0'
arc°J,Oen of��a\\ 5ea� P,e
0
5
5
Draft Revisions
The following draft set of revisions offer options for the Planning Commission to consider prior
to a formal recommendation from staff is made.
Table 3: Draft Block Length/Perimeter Standards
Scenario# Block Length Block Perimeter Comments
Most restrictive, creates smaller, most
Scenario 1 660' 1,400' compact block development patterns found
in traditional neighborhoods
Increased block length and perimeter will
Scenario 2 660' 1,760' allow for additional lots while maintaining
compact growth patterns found in
traditional neighborhoods and cities
Lengthier block lengths and perimeters
Scenario 3 720' 1,880 increase lots within each block but begin to
decrease benefit of walkable environments
Least restrictive, while this option provides
Scenario 4 800' 2,000' a standard for block length and perimeter
the lengthy distances will decrease the
intended benefit of the code amendment
In addition to the revisions identified above in Table 3, staff will update the definitions for the
following terms and create guidance within the code standards:
Block:
Current: "Block"means a group of lots, tracts, or parcels within a well-defined and fixed
boundary.
Proposed: "Block"or "Blocks"means a group of lots, tracts or parcels bound by public
right-of-way including streets, pedestrian access ways and other circulation routes
intended for public access.
Block Length:
Current: NONE
Proposed: "Block Length"means the distance as measured along the street centerline
intersecting streets
6
Block Perimeter:
Current: NONE
Proposed: "Block Perimeter"means the distance as measured along the street-centerline
encompassing a block.
Connectivity to Abutting Lands:
The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be designed to connect to existing,
proposed, and planned streets adjacent to the subdivision. Wherever a proposed
development abuts unplatted land or a future development phase of an existing
development, street stubs shall be provided to allow access to future abutting
subdivisions and to logically extend the street system into the surrounding area. Street
ends shall contain turnarounds constructed to Uniform Fire Code standards, as the City
deems applicable, and shall be designed to facilitate future extension in terms of
grading, width, and temporary barricades.
Future Street Plan:
Where a subdivision is proposed adjacent to other developable land, a future street plan
shall be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision in order
to facilitate orderly development of the street system. The plan shall show the pattern of
existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division
and shall include other divisible parcels within (600]feet surrounding and adjacent to the
proposed subdivision. (continued)...
The street plan [is binding and shall guide/is not binding, but is intended to show]
potential future street extensions with future development. The plan must demonstrate,
pursuant to City standards, that the proposed development does not preclude future
street connections to adjacent development land.
Cul-de-sacs (PMC 21.15.070):
A cul-de-sac shall only be permitted when the applicant demonstrates that natural
features or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or compliance with
other applicable City requirements preclude a street extension and through circulation.
Where the [City Council]determines that a cul-de-sac is allowed, all of the following
standards shall be meta
1. The cul-de-sac shall not exceed a length of 400 feet, except where the [City Council]
determines that topographic or other physical constraints of the site require a
longer cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the
centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the
farthest point of the cul-de-sac.
2. The cul-de-sac shall provide, or not preclude the opportunity to later install, a
pedestrian and bicycle access way connecting to other cul-de-sacs, streets,
7
adjacent developments, or adjacent developable lands. Such access ways shall
conform to the up to date version of the Pasco Design and Construction Standards.
3. The cul-de-sac shall meet the right-of-way requirements identified in the most up
to date version of the Pasco Design and Construction Standards
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accessways (PMC 21.15.1001:
Where required at approved cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets, or along blocks approved at
more than the maximum block length standard, pedestrian and bicycle accessways must
be constructed between lots to minimize travel distance between subdivisions, parks,
schools, and collector or arterial streets.
Accessways shall be located to provide a reasonably direct connection between likely
pedestrian destinations, and shall be consistent with the Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian
Master Plan and meet to the maximum extend possible the intent of the Complete Streets
Chapter (PMC 12.15). A reasonably direct connection is a route that minimizes out of
direction travel for people likely to use the connection considering terrain, safety and likely
destination. Required accessways shall conform to most up to date version of the Pasco
Design and Construction Standards.
The Planning Commission may determine that construction of a separate accessway is not
required when the applicant demonstrates that natural features or topographical
constraints, existing development patterns, or abutting land outside the Urban Growth
Area make construction of an accessway inappropriate or impractical,
Lots and Blocks (PMC 21.20.010):
In order to promote efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the city,
subdivisions shall be served by an interconnected street network.
1. Block lengths and perimeters in all zones except in the Industrial, and C-3 zones
shall not exceed the following standards as measured from centerline to centerline
of through intersecting streets. Exceptions may be permitted pursuant to
subsection (2) below.
2. Block length may exceed ###feet if an applicant demonstrates the existence of
one or more of the following conditions:
a) Physical conditions preclude a block length of 600 feet or less. These
conditions may include topography or the existence of physical features,
including, but not limited to: wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers,
lakes or steep grades, or a resource under protection by State or Federal
law;
8
b) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including
previously subdivided but vacant lots/parcels that physically preclude a
block length ###feet or less, considering the potential for redevelopment;
or
c) Where the extension of a public street into the proposed development
would create a block length exceeding 600 feet, the total block length shall
be as close to 600 feet as possible.
3. When a block length exceeds ### feet due to one of the conditions listed in
subsections (2)(a) through (2)(c), a mid-block pedestrian and bicycle occessway
connection shall be provided pursuant to[section reference].
Next Steps:
Staff is seeking preliminary comments from the Planning Commission on the proposed draft
revisions. A full code amendment will be brought back to the Planning Commission as a public
hearing at the June 18th, 2020 meeting.
9
floi��iiiiiiiiiiii City of
co
Street Connectivity
March Zi, 2020 1 Planning Commission
.,.LW City Of
411 Pasco Street Connectivity
Objective:
o Meet established Goals & Policies
2008 Comprehensive Plan
2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
2018 Complete Streets Policy
2018-2019 Pasco City Council Goals
In Progress: 2038 Comprehensive Plan; Transportation System Master Plan
Updates and considerations of best-planning practices required to the Pasco
Municipal Code
PMC 21.15 "Streets"
PMC 21.20 "Lots & Blocks"
' Cttyof
Risco Street Connectivity
Existing PMC
PMC 21.15 " Streets"
Street layout is addressed; lacks specific requirements
Pedestrian Ways addressed (PMC 21.15.1oo) but lack specific requirements
PMC 21.20 "Lots & Blocks"
Block Length:
Maximum: 1,320 feet; No Minimum
Block Width:
Two tiers of lots;
Cityor
Pasco Street Cunncar:b,�un-Iy
.'.-... �'g-��..�"�'t��i; �Y Yom+/,,, •:.. L ra; ,� ; __='-'^-� _ �,' .
.i, Y� v-'M.;.t 1i��x'y`.� � +��Q+�y'r�i.'-/-!�3�e�,y1. :�., .{�. 'r � _���y.•�'
yam,�f � � L •+v..Y ° ...,.
.lw. 1 9 ✓
_ ue rt----------
%1A
.. 'i� •`� S. ,. -. F-^ � ► '�.�,i+1/_ :E•' r�_ .�"�tF��r'•�+� ���f.. �� ���'� Y � t;-..� ` �1
ANO
.� l` ��f�•."�a'•'Vii... � 7—+��� (✓/�<<.r•'f�/.9!` � �� ��y��sV��f �':ti.��j i �� �:�A�Y
�. �_-....�_ � :.�� --'�...!�:^i:sem..•. - .��`t' ..�2....A
cif ? .-.. - - - �.• •� .1, - ._.. yam.,.- -
y..,�; i :_I��--� _�� '_� - � � '-ALT•; - �:.n�-x- _� .^ ••��"s,+.`-.k�.. �'`'��i
AU
• / 1 ."�` 1�'�.i.i:•'.f��'o` . ,.� (.�� Lrs�- � fi a.-�d�y� _I',x'�;I:w'�, �. ,�•�.�i y w".;�•R
' !"'�^"' /`-?' r f F ,q ;'°K�: Yom'�. _.-�-c.=•5 w� .32 trIlk
r.f'^ sY,- ry -�� j.. �.f.$.r.• .fir �;r_!•� fp�1 -��.. _. -. ".�.� r• r ��-
IP.rr
map
Gai
-'��i _;i;'+ �' °tom. �: ®- - ._�:•r', '� •yr ar.�r'' = ..:'�' �:'t;" ,2' _ ~ 'l' ;'.�;3it��--r.
r•'. ,;r ,� ,m yr,� y. .. R, � '' �1•-`��ism.
_1 _ i► _J " . ;ems.
. ���'� .rte '+I '�. �j �r 1�� •r.. 1-a .........Al
_ �M' 'F_ � •�. �..
....�-J •_ �.-- �`j t _Nr � .�'j �•� 1; �1
kL
X .
-=. City0f ®
Pasco Street Connectivity
Code Considerations -T-
Block Perimeter Length '
Block Length/Width f
Mid-Block Connections
Connection to Adjacent Properties Ceaventianal L;*;e CrAinear Lear PaEern 6 C witieoal
Pattern ie MOO) Orginalag eF CuFde Saa (f aI950) U-&-Sac Pattern
Source: Marshall &Garrick, 2010 (*a 1950)
Identify Benefits & Impacts
Accessibility & Safety 1
Efficient use of resources
(Public Transportation; Emergency)
Economic Development
Neighborhood Character
Source:City of Pasco Street Centerlines
irk City 'f
Pisco SII Street Connectivity
Scenario (options) Comparison
Scenario Max Block Length Max Block Perimeter Cul-de-Sac Connection to
Adjacent Properties
1 (TSMP) 660' 1,400' 400' Required
2 660' 1,760' 400' Required
3 720' 1,880' 400' Required
4 800' 2,000' 400' Required
"1 ,312 feet: most commonly cited length for walkable distance standard for transit
EI-Geneidy,A.,Grimsrud, M.,Wasfi,R.,Tetreault, P.,&Surprenant43 Legault, J. (2014). New evidence on walking distances to transit stops: Identifying redundancies and gaps using variable
service areas.Transportation,41(1), 193-210.
City Of
1q11
vilSco Street Connectivity
Scenario/Option #1 (TSMP)
Maximum Block Length 660'
Maximum Block Perimeter 1,400'
Mid-Block Connections Required when Max Block length exceeded
Cul-de-Sacs 400'
Connection to Adjacent Properties Required (existing, proposed, planned streets)
I
Example:High Density Lot 4,800 5 h I Example:Med-Density Lot(7,200 sgft) Example:Large Lot(12,150 sqft)
BLOCK WIDTH:220' BLOCK WIDTH:240' BLOCK WIDTH:330'
ROW:30' LOT:80' LOT:80' ROW:30' ROW:30' LOT:90' LOT:90' ROW:30' ROW:30'1 LOT:135' LOT:135' ROW:30'
c 60'x 80' 60'x 80' c r 80'x 90' 80'x 90' t b ExI 90'x 135'60'x 80' 60'x 80' _ 80'x 90' 80'x 90' c u �' 0 90'x 135' `„m 60'x 80' 60'x 80' Lo
°) =° 80'x 90' 80'x 90' 1D m ono 90'x 135' m o60'x 80' 60'x 80' smy 80'x 90' 80'x 90' mea 90'x 135'
m 60'x 80' 60'x 80' m 80'x 90' 80'x 90' BLOCK WIDTH:330'
c c
60'x 80' 60'x80' BLOCK WIDTH:240' BLOCK PERIMETER:1,400'(1,380')
c 60'x 80' 60'x 80' c BLOCK PERIMETER:1,400'(1,280')
as 60'x 80' 60'x 80' m
BLOCK WIDTH:220'
I _
BLOCK PERIMETER:1,400' I *Illustrative only, not drawn to scale
Citylf
Pasco Street Connectivity
Scenario/Option #2
Maximum Block Length 660'
Maximum Block Perimeter 1,760'
Mid-Block Connections Required when Max Block length exceeded
Cul-de-Sacs 400'
Connection to Adjacent Properties Required (existing, proposed, planned streets)
Example:High Density Lot(4,800 sqft) L Example:Med-Density Lot(7,200 sqft) _ I I Example:Large Lot(12,150 sqft)
BLOCK WIDTH:220' BLOCK WIDTH:240' BLOCK WIDTH:330'
ROW:30-1 LOT:80' LOT:80' ROW:30' ROW:30' LOT:90' LOT:90' 1 ROW:30' ROW:30' LOT:135' LOT:135' ROW:30'
60'x 80' 60'x 80' c 80'x 90' 80'x 90' c v 90 'x 135' 90'x 135' v
60'x 80' 60'x 80' V 80'x 90' 80'x 90' W `n 90'x 135' 90'x 135'
r
$ 60'x 80' 60'x 80' 0 80'x 90' 80'X 90' o to 0 90'x 135' 90'x 135'
r 0
V
60'x 80' 60'x 80' iD 80'x 90' 80'x 90' 1O mm, 90'x 135' 90'x 135' A
60'x 80' 60'x 80'to to 80'x 90' 80'x 90' m u 90'x 135' 290'x 135' Y
60'x 80' 60'x 80' r 80'x 90' 80'x 90' m 90'x 135'190,x 135' m
c
60'x 80' 60'x 80' 0 80'x 90' 80'x 90' o BLOCK WIDTH:330'
Y 60'x 80' 60'x 80' Y m 80'x 90' 80'x 90' m BLOCK PERIMETER:1,760' 1,740'
u u
u
60'x 80' 60'x 80' BLOCK WIDTH:240'
m m
_60'x 80' 60'x 80' BLOCK PERIMETER:1,760'
60'x 80' 60'x 80'
BLOCK WIDTH:220' *Illustrative only, not drawn to scale
BLOCK PERIMETER:1,760'
iiii"
Ciry ?f
1411
F Pasco Street Connectivi
Scenario/Option #3
Maximum Block Length 720'
Maximum Block Perimeter 1,880'
Mid-Block Connections Required when Max Block length exceeded
Cul-de-Sacs 400'
Connection to Adjacent Properties Required (existing, proposed, planned streets)
Example:High Density Lot(4,800 sqft) Example:Med-Density Lot(7,200 sgfo_ I Example:Large Lot(12,150 sgft)
BLOCK WIDTH:220' BLOCK WIDTH:240' BLOCK WIDTH:330'
ROW:30' LOT:80' LOT:80' 1 ROW:30' ROW:30' LOT:90' LOT:90' ROW:30' ROW:30' LOT:135' LOT:135' ROW:30'
60'x 80' 60'x 80' 1 80'x 90' 80'x 90' c v 90'x 135' 90'x 135' v
60'x 80' 60'x 80' 80'x 90' 80'x 90' r- `^ 90'x 135' 90'x 135'
c 60'x 80' 60'x 80' c 80'x 90' 80'x 90' bm e 90'x 135' 90'x 135' L
00 0
60'x 80' 60'x 80' ,�^. 1D 80'x 90' 80'x 90' 1D 90'x 13S' 90'x 135'
0 60'x 80' 60'x 80' o m 80'x 90' 80'x90' m '3 90'x 135' 90'x 135'
60'x 80' 60'x 80' ^ 80'x 90' 80'x 90' m 90'x 135' 90'x 135' m
Y 60'x 80' 60'x 80' U 80'x 90' 80'x 90' BLOCK WIDTH:330'
eo
60'x 80' 60'x 80' m 80'x 90' 80'x 90' L m BLOCK PERIMETER:1,760'(1,740'
0 60'x 80' 60'x 80' c BLOCK WIDTH:240'
m 60'x80' 60'x80' m BLOCK PERIMETER:1,760'
60'x 80' 60'x 80'
60'x 80' 60'x 80'
BLOCK WIDTH:220' *Illustrative only, not drawn to scale
BLOCK PERIMETER:1,880'
Cityaf
h Pasco Street Connectivity
Scenario/Option #4
Maximum Block Length 800'
Maximum Block Perimeter 2,000'
Mid-Block Connections Required when Max Block length exceeded
Cul-de-Sacs 400'
Connection to Adjacent Properties Required (existing, proposed, planned streets)
Example:High Density Lot(4,800 sgft) I ' Example:Med-Density Lot(7,200 sqft) Example:Large Lot(12,150 sgft)
BLOCK WIDTH:220' BLOCK WIDTH:240' T BLOCK WIDTH:330'
ROW:30' LOT:80' LOT:80' ROW:30' ROW:30' LOT:90' LOT:90' ROW:30' ROW:30' LOT:135' LOT:135' ROW:30'
60'x 80' 60'x 80' 80'x 90' 80'x 90' -- c 90'x 135' 90'x 135' c
60'x 80' 60'x 80' 0 80'x 90' 80'x 90' 0 90'x 135' 90'x 135' f°
60'x 80' 60'x 80' -. c 80'x 90' 80'x 90' c i 90'x 135' 90'x 135'
60'x 80' 60'x 80' 80'x 90' 80'x 90' c o 90'x 135' 90'x 135' c o
c 60'x 80' 60'x 80 c 80'x 90' 80'x 90' c 90'x 135' 90'x 135' Y'�
60'x 80' 60'x 80' 0080'x 90' 80'x 90' c _0 90'x 135' 90'x 135' _o
60'x 80' 60'x 80' r Y 80'x 90' 80'x 90' Y m 90'x 135' 90'x 135' m
w 60'x 80' 60'x 80' c° 0 80'x 90' 80'x 90' q BLOCK WIDTH:330'
Y
60'x 80' 60'x 80' m 80'x 90' 80'x 90' 00 I BLOCK_P_E_RIMETER:2,000' 1,920'1
_0
60'x 80' 60'x 80' _o BLOCK WIDTH:240'
m
60'x 80' 60'x 80' m BLOCK PERIMETER:2,000'(1,920')
60'x 80' 60'x 80'
60'x 80' 60'x 80'
BLOCK WIDTH:220' *Illustrative only, not drawn to scale
BLOCK PERIMETER: 0 '
City Of
r Pasco Street Connectivity
Next steps
Draft Code Amendment: June 2020
Coordination with City of Pasco Transportation System Master Plan WLST PASCO
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY
Estimated Council Adoption. 10 FINAL RNP()KI"
July/August 2020
Regaud lm.
0"of p�sN att Renron-FnnYlln Rgl°nW Co°ndl
City of Pam
`,1e150D Awa Franklin County
Nard`i�3 Waehln6hm DcParlmmlofTra nsp°Ralion
• SrprMvn.1991
Questions?
R,WILLIS R RATLIFF